![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Greetings, Itsmejudith. Please comment at Talk:Eugenics Virago250 ( talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Itsmejudith, I know you've been active on the reliable source noticeboard, but haven't commented on the Ferenc Szaniszlo section.... either because its obvious, or too complicated, or too long, etc. But if you get the chance I'd appreciate your thoughts (when you've time). Sorry to trouble. Am trying to convince people working on the noticeboard to comment... - Darouet ( talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
How close is this to becoming policy? It is desperately needed, some of the sources I see used for historical facts are terrible. BTW, you have four TB templates at the top of your talkpage, they will not get archived cos of where they are. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Itsmejudith! I have been aware of your excellent Wikipedia work for a long time now, and I have wondered before why you weren't an administrator. Would you be interested in running for RfA? I am a little surprised that you didn't run again after your first try, as you got plenty of support then. It's been four years since then, and in my opinion that is more than enough to show that you've addressed the concerns raised in your first RfA. So how about it? If you're interested in running, then I promise to write you up a stormer of a nomination statement. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Hi Itsmejudith! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
I am sorry to bother you, but the user Pluto2012 deleted the section "British policy in support of the Arabs" which is unfair in my opinion.
Debilitating.. :( In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Edge Hill University may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Central Lancashire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your help. I think, given another editor's views, I won't add the piece as it is. Rather, it needs a direct quote, perhaps from Chauncey, which says in so many words that mediaeval authors including Chaucer and Dante made reference to astrological themes. Lewis certainly supports that but my quote could (at a stretch) be taken to mean Latin gods rather than planets. I'm inclined to leave the whole thing alone, but would be happy to help if you have a suitable quote to hand. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I accepted the advice of user TransporterMan and would like to have your advice concerning the removal of the section: "British diplomacy supported the Arabs" (article: 1948 arab israeli war). by user pluto2012.
The main problem, in my opinion is not the content but a user conduct. Pluto2012 deletes a lot of my writings, although he does not claim that there is an error or sources problem. He usually has some vague claims like: due weight, POV, better place etc.
As I see it, he should obey Wikipedia rule: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.
If I am wrong in blaming him, I would like to know why. Otherwise, if he does not obey the rules, he should be notified, and hopefully stop the methodical deletion of my writing.
Am I wrong or right in blaming him with this misconduct?
thanks Ykantor ( talk) 20:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI: 1. the merged article has reappeared. 2. Also related new edits to RfC at Template talk:Infobox Chinese. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion. [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Judith, wanna issue a
Third Opinion in a
dispute which involves the question of whether
Gerontology Research Group is a reliable source?
Best regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
15:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC) (Just kidding.)
Please feel free to edit or comment on my new essay on children's nonfiction as sources for various subjects. I read your comments a few months ago in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 40#propose adding as questionable: children.27s.2C adult new reader.2C and maybe large-print sources, including your comments of April 20th and 21st. Nick Levinson ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) (Added a link I had stupidly forgotten and corrected another link: 18:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)) (Reformatted link (my error): 18:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC))
I saw your comment on my talk page, thanks for letting me know your thoughts -
As you can probably imagine, these sort of national specific-historical articles are a bit of a minefield, but I'm firmly of the belief that countries/territories should be given the name they had at the time. Take Israel and Palestine - currently separate categories "in World War II" on Commons - Israel only became a country in 1948 and before that, the British Palestine Mandate covered the whole area. Distinguishing between them (in a historical period) is thus extremely confusing! It's obviously not quite such a problem with Vietnam, but it would be best to be consistent where possible! --
Brigade Piron (
talk)
15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there! I've seen that you sometimes edit articles on academic institutions, and are well up on our policies on them and so on. If you have the time, would you care to take a glance at Central Saint Martins, where I've been trying to clean up a bit? I'd appreciate a second (and probably much sharper) pair of eyes. If not, no problem. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You may want to note this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Montanabw_personal_attacks. Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp#Requested_move_2.
FOARP (
talk)
10:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Arab–Israeli War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Tripp ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I am the person who asked about the surname Bishop at the Language reference desk, and you replied. I went to your userpage and became impressed by the number of userboxes you have. Then, I noticed that you believe in materialism, and I was like, "Hey, isn't that outdated?" Since you are a materialist, I would like to hear your opinion, if you don't mind, on how you explain the existence of energy, physical forces, chemical properties that induce chemical reactions, and imagination (and I don't mean the neuronal activity in the brain). Personally, I have found the materialism unsatisfying and a bit outdated with what I know or perceive of the world. So, please, I would like to hear how you manage to reconcile materialism with your worldview. If you do not feel like answering this question, then you may ignore or delete this message. Thanks in advance. 140.254.227.67 ( talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sincere thanks, but I only add categories and help place pix for User:KLOTZ (he's on Commons only). Without going into details, I'm sure he'd appreciate a note, though it may take him awhile to notice, and he's been taking photos for over 6 decades. Amazing guy. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You kindly commented on my inquiry in WP:RSN here. Since then, me and other folks added some notes. Would you mind taking another look to see if your opinion might have changed about this book. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Itsmejudith,
I think we will not find an agreement on the talk page. Do you know if there is a place where we could ask people to solve this question undependently of any other context... Here : Wikipedia:WikiProject History ? Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
To: Itsmejudith For extremely well versed and intelligent discussion on Humanities topics even in the face of sometimes interesting rebuttals. Your contributions are highly valued! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Itsmejudith. This concerns this RSN discussion concerning this article talkpage discussion. Various remarks are calling for you such as: "You tried WP:RSN and got a reply and I said I didn't think she had all the information and if she would post here on the talk page I would accept it."-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I posted this to your recent reference desk query on the problems you were having with your Macbook Air, but the question was archived as I posted my reply. I've copied my response here as I hope that it will be of use to you. Equisetum ( talk | contributions) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support regarding WP:RD/L [2]. Mille mercis. AldoSyrt ( talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm getting a bit concerned about incestuous sourcing and its effects on notability as well as perceptions of reliability. It is, of course, normal for academics to form subject- and theory-based affiliations but we seem to be developing a host of biographical articles around the fraught topic of libertarianism that really do rely on each other. I don't actually understand the libertarian concept and I've no great desire to delve into it but there appear to be a number economics professors, polemicist authors etc who are more notable for their revisionist writings on history and who form a school based around associations with thinktanks & publishers such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Cato Institute, Lewrockwell.com, The Independent Institute etc. They praise each other, they appoint each other and they cite each other ... but rarely do they seem to appear in, for example, mainstream history literature except when reviewed in an excoriating fashion. We are ending up with articles such as Thomas DiLorenzo & Jeff Riggenbach that rely substantially on these dodgy connections. Or are they dodgy? It feels to me like we've constructed an entire housing estate comprising buildings made of cards. Can we really rely on sources that are so intertwined yet distinct from the rest of the world?
I know that you have an interest in sourcing and in history stuff, so I'm just curious as to your opinion. If you have the time and inclination to expound, of course. I'm aware that the notability side of things probably is not of interest to you - no worries - but even those who are developing these articles are saying that independent sources are difficult to come by because the subjects are not of the mainstream. - Sitush ( talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that you missed me on the Refdesks. I have no less affection for Wikipedia despite having less time for its improvement. As I've not been contributing, no one's had any reason to say anything positive to or about me. So that was a nice surprise. BrainyBabe ( talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a note that I had to procedurally close the AfD on Hunbatz Men and renominate it, due to an error in nomination. I noticed you had made a comment on the original AfD, so just informing you, if you wish to comment on the 2nd nomination. Safiel ( talk) 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there massive overlinking form the website on the AIG article? That either means it's mianly OR or mainly insignificant, I'd say.... Guy ( Help!) 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this article. I was (while gritting my teeth) erring on the side of credulousness/inclusiveness; you've chopped what I wanted to chop.
Well, I've spent quite enough time on the article for now. I may return to it later, I may not. (Of course if you ask me to take a look at this or that within it or pertaining to it, I'll try to do it.)
Incidentally, I've also mentioned the article here (W-project Japan). -- Hoary ( talk) 10:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, one needs reliable sources in Japanese. ¶ Apropos of alien tongues, if you can translate from corporate blather into English, do please take a crack at "human resource management training" and "organizational development solutions". I mean, please don't think that you should get my OK or anything like that. (My own hunch is that they mean next to nothing, and they are best either deleted or discussed in the light of a certain elegant little book from Princeton University Press.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, right-branching: ([{human resource} management] training). -- Hoary ( talk) 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
In regards to this edit, [3] no, it's not about Pamela Geller, it's about a long-term pattern of combative, POV editing. There's no one diff to demonstrate this. It's a long-term pattern. MM came to my attention as the result of this RSN discussion. [4] And if you know me, I rarely get involved in disputes that come up at RSN but even if I was wrong, edit-warring to include possible BLP violations is never acceptable. Please see the following. [5] The editor only makes one type of edit: inserting/defending negative (or at least what some may perceive as negative) information regarding some living person with which they disagree politically. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
While I generally fully support the point you made here, I am not so sure about the Evening Standard. Are you sure you would regard it as a reliable source? On a further point, I wonder if the time has come to institute a general blacklist of tabloid sources on Wikipedia, as we already have for BLPs. We could base it on your list, or a modification thereof. -- John ( talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, At List of... please delete your pointless, non-constructive salvo following my comment that "These arguments sound like a defence against accusations of bias." We're supposed to comment on content, not other editors' behavior, as you know full well.
After you self-delete that bit, if you wish to make an "accusation of bias" please do so in a straight-forward manner at an appropriate venue, and then whoever you accuse can make a straight-forward "defense".... though it would be better to use language about article improvements instead of battle language. Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Voltaire may have broken the
syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you are struggling there. Did you remove or added tags there as Bladesmulti says? Dougweller ( talk) 16:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your comment on User:John Carter's Talk page. (a) I could be of a little help in the area as I studied classical Greek demon possession texts 20 years ago, but not sure what area your query lies. (b) Any idea how to fix the yellow block on John's talk page? In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, ItsMeJudy. I am a digital marketing specialist employed at Lincoln Tech (Lincoln Group of Schools - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Group_of_Schools). I am tasked with cleaning up this page. I see that you are active in the colleges and university project. There are some inaccuracies on this page that need to be removed or revised. Could you tell me the best way to go about this, or how to find an editor who can help me with this? Thank you, Eric, 74.102.85.132 ( talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value.
Sam Sailor
Sing
11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loren Cordain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forest Grove ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! In case you are interested, there is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. If you have time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Michael Barber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Minister of Punjab ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Istmejudith,
Regarding this discussion ( [7]), given there is a "disagreement", we need to make an official request for the move. Do you know how to proceed ?
Many thanks, Pluto2012 ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Following up on the RSN, input would be appreciated on the talk page Talk:Rafah_massacre#RSN_on_Sacco.27s_book. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see new subsection about the MOS at list of sci opposing; thx NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your encouragement and note at Talk:Vietnamese poetry. The original creator/translator Hongtran0507 has mysteriously reappeared, and seems willing to help me with this daunting task. This editor is a noob, I'm already setting high expectations, and I question my own ability to be a good mentor. Specifically (as is the case for most people) I don't remember what it's like to know less about the process, so when mistakes happen, my inclination is just to say "look it up" or to fix it my damn self, neither of which is very helpful for the growth of a new editor. My spidey-sense tells me this editor should be retained and will be affected by initial experiences. Maybe mentoring isn't your thing either, but if you can, I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on Hongtran's progress, and jump in if you see me providing inadequate guidance. Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, IMJ. I'm near the bottom of my well of sources for verse forms at Vietnamese poetry. I've got a couple more coming through the library, but I suspect they won't yield much more on these lines. You seemed to have particular concerns about coverage for some of these forms, so I wonder if you wouldn't take a few minutes to informally review the sections I've completed(?). They're Prosody (both subsections) and Verse forms (Regulated verse, Luc bat, and Song that luc bat). Do you find elements missing? or that should be expanded or clarified? or approached differently? Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 03:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi 'Itsmejudith'
I am trying to get hold of someone who has credited you on their wiki user page: /info/en/?search=User:Unisouth
Do you have any contact details for Unisouth or the ability to get me in touch with them?
Many thanks,
Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.. I'll keep trying :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In 2011, you wrote there: "I would like to see less minutiae of party splits and more on the relationship between the various parties and the social movements." Well, the prefaces of The Encyclopedia of the American Left (copied into the talk page) plainly indicate that the most important categorizations in the American Left are pretty much "who likes capitalism and who doesn't?" and "who's got an international focus and who doesn't?" and those categorizations most likely define the relationships between many of the parties and movements (although I don't have a reference for that). Conservatives in the US seem to want to portray the left as mostly anticapitalist. Liberals just want to avoid the existence of those socialists and communists and claim the entire Left as if it were theirs to own. Check out my userpage and the recent article history for some amusing corrections I attempted at that article in February. I may be guilty of some bad policy wikidrama thingie, but nobody has stopped me so far. After the dust has settled, you might try to go in there and talk about the lead, scope, and structure of the article, but maybe not. You might have more patience than I have, but it's scary in there! Flying Jazz ( talk) 14:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Good work on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive. Thank you. 66.168.160.62 ( talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng ( talk) 04:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#dry_leaves where I "fixed" what was apparently a format error of yours, although only you can confirm if it is what you intended. :) μηδείς ( talk) 22:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (2nd nomination) 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. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice to see you back. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Either Shrike or I have misread your remarks on Jonathan Ofir at the RSN board. See here. My take was that you and Only in death does duty end did not question Ofir/Mondoweiss as reliable, which was the reason given for removing him from an article where it has lain, stable, for over one year. Could you find a moment to reread the RSN thread and perhaps clarify your view there on whether the existing translation, there since February 2016 until removed as WP:Undue, requires consensus to be restored now that one editor removed it on grounds Only in death does duty end finds totally unrelated to serious policy interpretation? Thanks and sorry for the bother, Nishidani ( talk) 13:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele.23Unrelated_sources Drsmoo ( talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This is to notify you that the prior RfC at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming was withdrawn as the question confused several people, and instead it was re-opened with a new clarified question. I am notifying all those that responded to the old RfC (except those that have already responded) so that they may comment on the new RfC. The new RfC is here: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#RfC:_Should_the_phrase_.E2.80.9Cthe_consensus_has_strengthened_over_time.E2.80.9D_be_removed_as_WP:SYNTHESIS_or_WP:UNDUE_WEIGHT.3F Obsidi ( talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I pinged you at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section for clarity request. I am giving you notice just in case. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hope you're ok. I notice that your edit count has dropped dramatically these last few months. - Sitush ( talk) 09:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I’m absolutely fine. Just got a lot of real life going on at the moment. Thanks for your thoughtful message. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Khalid ibn al-Walid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect QIA. Since you had some involvement with the QIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Laun chba ller 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Nice to see you're still around. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Doug. Thank you for the brownie. I'm hardly around at all though. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Shanghai International Fashion Culture Festival has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Apparently non notable festival.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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.
Mccapra (
talk)
00:14, 9 November 2020 (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)
00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Greetings, Itsmejudith. Please comment at Talk:Eugenics Virago250 ( talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Itsmejudith, I know you've been active on the reliable source noticeboard, but haven't commented on the Ferenc Szaniszlo section.... either because its obvious, or too complicated, or too long, etc. But if you get the chance I'd appreciate your thoughts (when you've time). Sorry to trouble. Am trying to convince people working on the noticeboard to comment... - Darouet ( talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
How close is this to becoming policy? It is desperately needed, some of the sources I see used for historical facts are terrible. BTW, you have four TB templates at the top of your talkpage, they will not get archived cos of where they are. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Itsmejudith! I have been aware of your excellent Wikipedia work for a long time now, and I have wondered before why you weren't an administrator. Would you be interested in running for RfA? I am a little surprised that you didn't run again after your first try, as you got plenty of support then. It's been four years since then, and in my opinion that is more than enough to show that you've addressed the concerns raised in your first RfA. So how about it? If you're interested in running, then I promise to write you up a stormer of a nomination statement. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Hi Itsmejudith! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
I am sorry to bother you, but the user Pluto2012 deleted the section "British policy in support of the Arabs" which is unfair in my opinion.
Debilitating.. :( In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Edge Hill University may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Central Lancashire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your help. I think, given another editor's views, I won't add the piece as it is. Rather, it needs a direct quote, perhaps from Chauncey, which says in so many words that mediaeval authors including Chaucer and Dante made reference to astrological themes. Lewis certainly supports that but my quote could (at a stretch) be taken to mean Latin gods rather than planets. I'm inclined to leave the whole thing alone, but would be happy to help if you have a suitable quote to hand. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I accepted the advice of user TransporterMan and would like to have your advice concerning the removal of the section: "British diplomacy supported the Arabs" (article: 1948 arab israeli war). by user pluto2012.
The main problem, in my opinion is not the content but a user conduct. Pluto2012 deletes a lot of my writings, although he does not claim that there is an error or sources problem. He usually has some vague claims like: due weight, POV, better place etc.
As I see it, he should obey Wikipedia rule: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.
If I am wrong in blaming him, I would like to know why. Otherwise, if he does not obey the rules, he should be notified, and hopefully stop the methodical deletion of my writing.
Am I wrong or right in blaming him with this misconduct?
thanks Ykantor ( talk) 20:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI: 1. the merged article has reappeared. 2. Also related new edits to RfC at Template talk:Infobox Chinese. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion. [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Judith, wanna issue a
Third Opinion in a
dispute which involves the question of whether
Gerontology Research Group is a reliable source?
Best regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
15:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC) (Just kidding.)
Please feel free to edit or comment on my new essay on children's nonfiction as sources for various subjects. I read your comments a few months ago in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 40#propose adding as questionable: children.27s.2C adult new reader.2C and maybe large-print sources, including your comments of April 20th and 21st. Nick Levinson ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) (Added a link I had stupidly forgotten and corrected another link: 18:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)) (Reformatted link (my error): 18:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC))
I saw your comment on my talk page, thanks for letting me know your thoughts -
As you can probably imagine, these sort of national specific-historical articles are a bit of a minefield, but I'm firmly of the belief that countries/territories should be given the name they had at the time. Take Israel and Palestine - currently separate categories "in World War II" on Commons - Israel only became a country in 1948 and before that, the British Palestine Mandate covered the whole area. Distinguishing between them (in a historical period) is thus extremely confusing! It's obviously not quite such a problem with Vietnam, but it would be best to be consistent where possible! --
Brigade Piron (
talk)
15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there! I've seen that you sometimes edit articles on academic institutions, and are well up on our policies on them and so on. If you have the time, would you care to take a glance at Central Saint Martins, where I've been trying to clean up a bit? I'd appreciate a second (and probably much sharper) pair of eyes. If not, no problem. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You may want to note this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Montanabw_personal_attacks. Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp#Requested_move_2.
FOARP (
talk)
10:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Arab–Israeli War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Tripp ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I am the person who asked about the surname Bishop at the Language reference desk, and you replied. I went to your userpage and became impressed by the number of userboxes you have. Then, I noticed that you believe in materialism, and I was like, "Hey, isn't that outdated?" Since you are a materialist, I would like to hear your opinion, if you don't mind, on how you explain the existence of energy, physical forces, chemical properties that induce chemical reactions, and imagination (and I don't mean the neuronal activity in the brain). Personally, I have found the materialism unsatisfying and a bit outdated with what I know or perceive of the world. So, please, I would like to hear how you manage to reconcile materialism with your worldview. If you do not feel like answering this question, then you may ignore or delete this message. Thanks in advance. 140.254.227.67 ( talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sincere thanks, but I only add categories and help place pix for User:KLOTZ (he's on Commons only). Without going into details, I'm sure he'd appreciate a note, though it may take him awhile to notice, and he's been taking photos for over 6 decades. Amazing guy. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You kindly commented on my inquiry in WP:RSN here. Since then, me and other folks added some notes. Would you mind taking another look to see if your opinion might have changed about this book. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Itsmejudith,
I think we will not find an agreement on the talk page. Do you know if there is a place where we could ask people to solve this question undependently of any other context... Here : Wikipedia:WikiProject History ? Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
To: Itsmejudith For extremely well versed and intelligent discussion on Humanities topics even in the face of sometimes interesting rebuttals. Your contributions are highly valued! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Itsmejudith. This concerns this RSN discussion concerning this article talkpage discussion. Various remarks are calling for you such as: "You tried WP:RSN and got a reply and I said I didn't think she had all the information and if she would post here on the talk page I would accept it."-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I posted this to your recent reference desk query on the problems you were having with your Macbook Air, but the question was archived as I posted my reply. I've copied my response here as I hope that it will be of use to you. Equisetum ( talk | contributions) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support regarding WP:RD/L [2]. Mille mercis. AldoSyrt ( talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm getting a bit concerned about incestuous sourcing and its effects on notability as well as perceptions of reliability. It is, of course, normal for academics to form subject- and theory-based affiliations but we seem to be developing a host of biographical articles around the fraught topic of libertarianism that really do rely on each other. I don't actually understand the libertarian concept and I've no great desire to delve into it but there appear to be a number economics professors, polemicist authors etc who are more notable for their revisionist writings on history and who form a school based around associations with thinktanks & publishers such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Cato Institute, Lewrockwell.com, The Independent Institute etc. They praise each other, they appoint each other and they cite each other ... but rarely do they seem to appear in, for example, mainstream history literature except when reviewed in an excoriating fashion. We are ending up with articles such as Thomas DiLorenzo & Jeff Riggenbach that rely substantially on these dodgy connections. Or are they dodgy? It feels to me like we've constructed an entire housing estate comprising buildings made of cards. Can we really rely on sources that are so intertwined yet distinct from the rest of the world?
I know that you have an interest in sourcing and in history stuff, so I'm just curious as to your opinion. If you have the time and inclination to expound, of course. I'm aware that the notability side of things probably is not of interest to you - no worries - but even those who are developing these articles are saying that independent sources are difficult to come by because the subjects are not of the mainstream. - Sitush ( talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that you missed me on the Refdesks. I have no less affection for Wikipedia despite having less time for its improvement. As I've not been contributing, no one's had any reason to say anything positive to or about me. So that was a nice surprise. BrainyBabe ( talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a note that I had to procedurally close the AfD on Hunbatz Men and renominate it, due to an error in nomination. I noticed you had made a comment on the original AfD, so just informing you, if you wish to comment on the 2nd nomination. Safiel ( talk) 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there massive overlinking form the website on the AIG article? That either means it's mianly OR or mainly insignificant, I'd say.... Guy ( Help!) 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this article. I was (while gritting my teeth) erring on the side of credulousness/inclusiveness; you've chopped what I wanted to chop.
Well, I've spent quite enough time on the article for now. I may return to it later, I may not. (Of course if you ask me to take a look at this or that within it or pertaining to it, I'll try to do it.)
Incidentally, I've also mentioned the article here (W-project Japan). -- Hoary ( talk) 10:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, one needs reliable sources in Japanese. ¶ Apropos of alien tongues, if you can translate from corporate blather into English, do please take a crack at "human resource management training" and "organizational development solutions". I mean, please don't think that you should get my OK or anything like that. (My own hunch is that they mean next to nothing, and they are best either deleted or discussed in the light of a certain elegant little book from Princeton University Press.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, right-branching: ([{human resource} management] training). -- Hoary ( talk) 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
In regards to this edit, [3] no, it's not about Pamela Geller, it's about a long-term pattern of combative, POV editing. There's no one diff to demonstrate this. It's a long-term pattern. MM came to my attention as the result of this RSN discussion. [4] And if you know me, I rarely get involved in disputes that come up at RSN but even if I was wrong, edit-warring to include possible BLP violations is never acceptable. Please see the following. [5] The editor only makes one type of edit: inserting/defending negative (or at least what some may perceive as negative) information regarding some living person with which they disagree politically. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
While I generally fully support the point you made here, I am not so sure about the Evening Standard. Are you sure you would regard it as a reliable source? On a further point, I wonder if the time has come to institute a general blacklist of tabloid sources on Wikipedia, as we already have for BLPs. We could base it on your list, or a modification thereof. -- John ( talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, At List of... please delete your pointless, non-constructive salvo following my comment that "These arguments sound like a defence against accusations of bias." We're supposed to comment on content, not other editors' behavior, as you know full well.
After you self-delete that bit, if you wish to make an "accusation of bias" please do so in a straight-forward manner at an appropriate venue, and then whoever you accuse can make a straight-forward "defense".... though it would be better to use language about article improvements instead of battle language. Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Voltaire may have broken the
syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you are struggling there. Did you remove or added tags there as Bladesmulti says? Dougweller ( talk) 16:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your comment on User:John Carter's Talk page. (a) I could be of a little help in the area as I studied classical Greek demon possession texts 20 years ago, but not sure what area your query lies. (b) Any idea how to fix the yellow block on John's talk page? In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, ItsMeJudy. I am a digital marketing specialist employed at Lincoln Tech (Lincoln Group of Schools - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Group_of_Schools). I am tasked with cleaning up this page. I see that you are active in the colleges and university project. There are some inaccuracies on this page that need to be removed or revised. Could you tell me the best way to go about this, or how to find an editor who can help me with this? Thank you, Eric, 74.102.85.132 ( talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value.
Sam Sailor
Sing
11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loren Cordain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forest Grove ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! In case you are interested, there is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. If you have time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Michael Barber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Minister of Punjab ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Istmejudith,
Regarding this discussion ( [7]), given there is a "disagreement", we need to make an official request for the move. Do you know how to proceed ?
Many thanks, Pluto2012 ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Following up on the RSN, input would be appreciated on the talk page Talk:Rafah_massacre#RSN_on_Sacco.27s_book. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see new subsection about the MOS at list of sci opposing; thx NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your encouragement and note at Talk:Vietnamese poetry. The original creator/translator Hongtran0507 has mysteriously reappeared, and seems willing to help me with this daunting task. This editor is a noob, I'm already setting high expectations, and I question my own ability to be a good mentor. Specifically (as is the case for most people) I don't remember what it's like to know less about the process, so when mistakes happen, my inclination is just to say "look it up" or to fix it my damn self, neither of which is very helpful for the growth of a new editor. My spidey-sense tells me this editor should be retained and will be affected by initial experiences. Maybe mentoring isn't your thing either, but if you can, I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on Hongtran's progress, and jump in if you see me providing inadequate guidance. Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, IMJ. I'm near the bottom of my well of sources for verse forms at Vietnamese poetry. I've got a couple more coming through the library, but I suspect they won't yield much more on these lines. You seemed to have particular concerns about coverage for some of these forms, so I wonder if you wouldn't take a few minutes to informally review the sections I've completed(?). They're Prosody (both subsections) and Verse forms (Regulated verse, Luc bat, and Song that luc bat). Do you find elements missing? or that should be expanded or clarified? or approached differently? Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 03:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi 'Itsmejudith'
I am trying to get hold of someone who has credited you on their wiki user page: /info/en/?search=User:Unisouth
Do you have any contact details for Unisouth or the ability to get me in touch with them?
Many thanks,
Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.. I'll keep trying :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In 2011, you wrote there: "I would like to see less minutiae of party splits and more on the relationship between the various parties and the social movements." Well, the prefaces of The Encyclopedia of the American Left (copied into the talk page) plainly indicate that the most important categorizations in the American Left are pretty much "who likes capitalism and who doesn't?" and "who's got an international focus and who doesn't?" and those categorizations most likely define the relationships between many of the parties and movements (although I don't have a reference for that). Conservatives in the US seem to want to portray the left as mostly anticapitalist. Liberals just want to avoid the existence of those socialists and communists and claim the entire Left as if it were theirs to own. Check out my userpage and the recent article history for some amusing corrections I attempted at that article in February. I may be guilty of some bad policy wikidrama thingie, but nobody has stopped me so far. After the dust has settled, you might try to go in there and talk about the lead, scope, and structure of the article, but maybe not. You might have more patience than I have, but it's scary in there! Flying Jazz ( talk) 14:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Good work on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive. Thank you. 66.168.160.62 ( talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng ( talk) 04:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#dry_leaves where I "fixed" what was apparently a format error of yours, although only you can confirm if it is what you intended. :) μηδείς ( talk) 22:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (2nd nomination) 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. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice to see you back. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Either Shrike or I have misread your remarks on Jonathan Ofir at the RSN board. See here. My take was that you and Only in death does duty end did not question Ofir/Mondoweiss as reliable, which was the reason given for removing him from an article where it has lain, stable, for over one year. Could you find a moment to reread the RSN thread and perhaps clarify your view there on whether the existing translation, there since February 2016 until removed as WP:Undue, requires consensus to be restored now that one editor removed it on grounds Only in death does duty end finds totally unrelated to serious policy interpretation? Thanks and sorry for the bother, Nishidani ( talk) 13:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele.23Unrelated_sources Drsmoo ( talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This is to notify you that the prior RfC at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming was withdrawn as the question confused several people, and instead it was re-opened with a new clarified question. I am notifying all those that responded to the old RfC (except those that have already responded) so that they may comment on the new RfC. The new RfC is here: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#RfC:_Should_the_phrase_.E2.80.9Cthe_consensus_has_strengthened_over_time.E2.80.9D_be_removed_as_WP:SYNTHESIS_or_WP:UNDUE_WEIGHT.3F Obsidi ( talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I pinged you at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section for clarity request. I am giving you notice just in case. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hope you're ok. I notice that your edit count has dropped dramatically these last few months. - Sitush ( talk) 09:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I’m absolutely fine. Just got a lot of real life going on at the moment. Thanks for your thoughtful message. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Khalid ibn al-Walid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect QIA. Since you had some involvement with the QIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Laun chba ller 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Nice to see you're still around. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Doug. Thank you for the brownie. I'm hardly around at all though. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Shanghai International Fashion Culture Festival has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Apparently non notable festival.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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.
Mccapra (
talk)
00:14, 9 November 2020 (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)
00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)