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. |
Hello, Sonicyouth86, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (bananaphone 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia rules in relation to Wikihounding. Every single one of you edits since joining Wikipedia involves following User:Cybermud around the encyclopaedia and this, combined with your hostility towards the user is unwelcome and may constitute harassment. His edits appear to be unproblematic and well sourced therefore it is strange that you are following him around like this. To quote from Wikipedia guidelines "the important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Many thanks.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonicyouth86. Thank you. (This was written by Cybermud who must have forgotten to sign)
Here is the result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonicyouth86/Archive Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I politely suggested on my talk page that you refrain from making false allegations regarding myself and mis-describing my editing yet I see you continue to make false claims. Your "summary" of the SPI was bad enough, and until then I hoped some of your behaviour was down to misunderstandings or mistakes yet a clear pattern has now emerged. You know full well I didn't submit that SPI, and furthermore you're fully aware that I have never suspected Nick Levinson of any wrongdoing on Wikipedia yet you've added a huge heading to this page suggesting I'm just as responsible for that SPI as Cybermud. In fact the situation is even worse than that as it's abundantly clear you know that I recommended on multiple pages that all allegations in relation to Nick Levinson should be withdrawn and was the first person to suggest such a thing, therefore the situation is pretty much the exact opposite as you suggest! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article Please strike through some of your many false comments about me on Wikipedia. Also I'd urge to to strive to be more accurate in the way you describe events and the actions of other editors in future as misrepresenting such information is a breach of Wikipedia rules in relation to civility. Many thanks.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 01:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that Margaret Fuller is a featured article. Adding information that is not properly cited ruins the integrity of the article. Please, be more careful. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Excellent source. Thanx for adding.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I expect to reply and perhaps edit this weekend, if not earlier. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say hourly pay because we are using OCED statistics and the statistics we are saying says
I do not thing it's fair to say hourly pay when we are quoting a wage gap statistics. Median earnings mean this Median household income not hourly wage. Unless you can find European Commission statistics that compare quote hourly rates it's not fair to deceive the readers. This is clear deceiving the readers.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 11:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping improve this article. Sorry people are so hostile there. I don't really understand it myself. Thanks for sticking around! -- Aronoel ( talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks so much for posting the link to the Abusharaf 2001 paper on Talk:FGM and giving an overview. I have looked at the paper on Scribd and I am having great trouble reading it, so since you offered :) please send me a PDF. I've enabled my e-mail address. Ethnography and contextualisation are unfamiliar concepts to me. It'll take me a while to get my head around them. Rubywine . talk 20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't want to see this develop into a fight (particularly since Dreadstar is an admin, and that 's a fight you're going to lose). let's just try to tone it down a bit, ok? -- Ludwigs2 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I plan to also have a career in psychology--I am applying for Grad School for specializing in health psychology next fall.-- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
A cup of tea for having a username after one of my favorite bands of all time. <3 SarahStierch ( talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
It's amazing what a few kind words can do. Thank you, Sarah. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 10:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Galimov died over 90 minutes ago and was confirmed by multiple sources. Get your facts straight. ( Saint0wen ( talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC))
If I were thank you for doing something, say for making noise, and that's notable enough to make a wikipedia article. It only follows that the noise you actually made is relevant too. 76.29.42.120 ( talk) 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
189px | Thanks! |
Thanks for adding new info about the controversial Man Down! (I have copy-edited it slightly and also formatted the references) – Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 01:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
"Controversial" according to the PTC... You've been doing a marvelous job on the Rihanna articles from what I can tell. Kudos to you. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Sonicyouth86, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Sonicyouth86.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Men's Rights". Thank you. -- SarahStierch ( talk) 13:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgorman-ucb ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 October 2011
Mind the Gap Award | ||
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Sonicyouth86, with the Mind the Gap Award for your amazing contributions to women's and feminist subjects on Wikipedia. Your passion for your chosen subjects and your desire to help "close the gap" really shine through in your contributions. Thank you! SarahStierch ( talk) 00:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
Please familiarize w/ MOS:FLAG re infoboxes (e.g. chess biographies), so we don't undo & redo one another's edits. (Thx!) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
An IP keeps stirring the pot a bit and just added a pile of Michael Lamb material; which was swiftly removed, might want to add LGBT parenting to your watch list if you are so inclined! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why have you never edited the domestic violence page to be what you want it to be? If you do so I will better understand what you are aiming for through extensive conversation on the talk page. Binksternet ( talk) 13:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't favor a non-sequential comment sequence because I expect some subsequent comments will refer to previous comments, and a non-chronological order will make the conversation harder to follow. Also, grouping by ayes and nays makes the discussion look more like a poll, which probably isn't something to encourage. My 2¢—you decide. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for removing your edits from this article, but the IP editor just before you has been stubbornly removing/changing content in the article in a disruptive and partly unsourced manner. It was just too difficult to disentangle the IP's edits from yours. I have left a final warning on the IP's Talk page (they've been blocked before). Anyway, to the extent you wish you add content to the current article base, feel free. Sorry for any extra work.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
See subject/headling =) SarahStierch ( talk) 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shame (2011 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety ( 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) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to start nagging "sexy" talk pages for the sake of gender equal images! Talk:Facial_(sex_act)#Images_-_It.27d_be_great_to_have_not_just_women_being_on_the_receiving_end. Thought you'd get a chuckle. It is kind of sad how depressed the women look in the images, LOL. SarahStierch ( talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read his "evidence". The comments he added on the talk page show him in an even worse light than the original wording. It's noticeable that, whereas those who have asserted that the word is offensive and sexist (eg. User:Colonel Warden, User:Wikidemon and myself) have provided citations to back up the statement, those who disagree have cited only personal experience or personal opinion - "It's a common word down our way", etc. The comments by several other contributors show that they have not read my evidence - why should they? - and some of them do not appear even to have read the original exchange. If they had, they would know that the word was specifically directed by Malleus at the majority of administrators. User:SandyGeorgia, for example, seems to think that the word was "not directed at specific users". I am trusting the arbitrators on this one, to read the history and the evidence clearly and to recognise which contributors are just interested in stirring things up. I've been on wikipedia since 2002. In that time I've encountered many difficult and aggressive contributors; a substantial proportion of them believe themselves superior. Most of them are long gone. I console myself in the knowledge that I will still be here after the main participants in this debate have grown tired of the project and gone away. Deb ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your e-mail. Deb ( talk) 12:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes: Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - everyone should get into that project and actually start making things happening, it shouldn't be how it is now where the only people that stay are the people who're able to deal with crap because often the more meek people have a lot to say if given the chance... Wikipedia needs to be less like a warzone where people are liable to have their stuff deleted without reason at any moment with no attempts to talk... There needs to be more social, it needs to catch up with the rest of the internet it's still in the 90's -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg | Rubber duckies for you |
Happy Valentine's Day SY! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks but the one I'm looking for is "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life'? The Emergence of Pro-Life Feminism in Irish Anti-Abortion Discourses and Practices" in the Irish Journal of Feminist Studies; in the article you sent, there's brief discussion of "pro-life feminism" but it's not the focus so it would be better to look at an article where that is the focus. Appreciate the help! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the article! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sonicyouth. In response to your email, I've commented on Sarek's talk page about this issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy has had changes in the length of description of Sandra Fluke. It is currently quite minimal. If you have an opinion on how much biographical material on Sandra Fluke should be in the article, you can offer it on the talk page. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 17:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for going the extra mile to get that Oaks article for Pro-life feminism. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
would you consider undoing it? The Australia study as it stands places undue weight on its false classification. The procedures may very well be simply those who it threatened to file charges against. The greater context of withdrawn and not pursued is not irrelevant. It clarifies the uncertainty of these classifications.
Regarding your Rumney edit, it was clear that it was Rumney quoting Stewart. In your previous edit, you placed undue weight on criticism of Stewart by selectively quoting one of his findings.
thank you Godspiral ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sonicyouth86. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:29, 6 April 2012 (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. |
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. |
Hello, Sonicyouth86, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (bananaphone 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia rules in relation to Wikihounding. Every single one of you edits since joining Wikipedia involves following User:Cybermud around the encyclopaedia and this, combined with your hostility towards the user is unwelcome and may constitute harassment. His edits appear to be unproblematic and well sourced therefore it is strange that you are following him around like this. To quote from Wikipedia guidelines "the important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Many thanks.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonicyouth86. Thank you. (This was written by Cybermud who must have forgotten to sign)
Here is the result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonicyouth86/Archive Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I politely suggested on my talk page that you refrain from making false allegations regarding myself and mis-describing my editing yet I see you continue to make false claims. Your "summary" of the SPI was bad enough, and until then I hoped some of your behaviour was down to misunderstandings or mistakes yet a clear pattern has now emerged. You know full well I didn't submit that SPI, and furthermore you're fully aware that I have never suspected Nick Levinson of any wrongdoing on Wikipedia yet you've added a huge heading to this page suggesting I'm just as responsible for that SPI as Cybermud. In fact the situation is even worse than that as it's abundantly clear you know that I recommended on multiple pages that all allegations in relation to Nick Levinson should be withdrawn and was the first person to suggest such a thing, therefore the situation is pretty much the exact opposite as you suggest! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article Please strike through some of your many false comments about me on Wikipedia. Also I'd urge to to strive to be more accurate in the way you describe events and the actions of other editors in future as misrepresenting such information is a breach of Wikipedia rules in relation to civility. Many thanks.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 01:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that Margaret Fuller is a featured article. Adding information that is not properly cited ruins the integrity of the article. Please, be more careful. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Excellent source. Thanx for adding.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I expect to reply and perhaps edit this weekend, if not earlier. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say hourly pay because we are using OCED statistics and the statistics we are saying says
I do not thing it's fair to say hourly pay when we are quoting a wage gap statistics. Median earnings mean this Median household income not hourly wage. Unless you can find European Commission statistics that compare quote hourly rates it's not fair to deceive the readers. This is clear deceiving the readers.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 11:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping improve this article. Sorry people are so hostile there. I don't really understand it myself. Thanks for sticking around! -- Aronoel ( talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks so much for posting the link to the Abusharaf 2001 paper on Talk:FGM and giving an overview. I have looked at the paper on Scribd and I am having great trouble reading it, so since you offered :) please send me a PDF. I've enabled my e-mail address. Ethnography and contextualisation are unfamiliar concepts to me. It'll take me a while to get my head around them. Rubywine . talk 20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't want to see this develop into a fight (particularly since Dreadstar is an admin, and that 's a fight you're going to lose). let's just try to tone it down a bit, ok? -- Ludwigs2 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I plan to also have a career in psychology--I am applying for Grad School for specializing in health psychology next fall.-- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
A cup of tea for having a username after one of my favorite bands of all time. <3 SarahStierch ( talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
It's amazing what a few kind words can do. Thank you, Sarah. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 10:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Galimov died over 90 minutes ago and was confirmed by multiple sources. Get your facts straight. ( Saint0wen ( talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC))
If I were thank you for doing something, say for making noise, and that's notable enough to make a wikipedia article. It only follows that the noise you actually made is relevant too. 76.29.42.120 ( talk) 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
189px | Thanks! |
Thanks for adding new info about the controversial Man Down! (I have copy-edited it slightly and also formatted the references) – Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 01:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
"Controversial" according to the PTC... You've been doing a marvelous job on the Rihanna articles from what I can tell. Kudos to you. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Sonicyouth86, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Sonicyouth86.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Men's Rights". Thank you. -- SarahStierch ( talk) 13:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgorman-ucb ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 October 2011
Mind the Gap Award | ||
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Sonicyouth86, with the Mind the Gap Award for your amazing contributions to women's and feminist subjects on Wikipedia. Your passion for your chosen subjects and your desire to help "close the gap" really shine through in your contributions. Thank you! SarahStierch ( talk) 00:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
Please familiarize w/ MOS:FLAG re infoboxes (e.g. chess biographies), so we don't undo & redo one another's edits. (Thx!) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
An IP keeps stirring the pot a bit and just added a pile of Michael Lamb material; which was swiftly removed, might want to add LGBT parenting to your watch list if you are so inclined! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why have you never edited the domestic violence page to be what you want it to be? If you do so I will better understand what you are aiming for through extensive conversation on the talk page. Binksternet ( talk) 13:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't favor a non-sequential comment sequence because I expect some subsequent comments will refer to previous comments, and a non-chronological order will make the conversation harder to follow. Also, grouping by ayes and nays makes the discussion look more like a poll, which probably isn't something to encourage. My 2¢—you decide. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for removing your edits from this article, but the IP editor just before you has been stubbornly removing/changing content in the article in a disruptive and partly unsourced manner. It was just too difficult to disentangle the IP's edits from yours. I have left a final warning on the IP's Talk page (they've been blocked before). Anyway, to the extent you wish you add content to the current article base, feel free. Sorry for any extra work.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
See subject/headling =) SarahStierch ( talk) 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shame (2011 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety ( 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) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to start nagging "sexy" talk pages for the sake of gender equal images! Talk:Facial_(sex_act)#Images_-_It.27d_be_great_to_have_not_just_women_being_on_the_receiving_end. Thought you'd get a chuckle. It is kind of sad how depressed the women look in the images, LOL. SarahStierch ( talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read his "evidence". The comments he added on the talk page show him in an even worse light than the original wording. It's noticeable that, whereas those who have asserted that the word is offensive and sexist (eg. User:Colonel Warden, User:Wikidemon and myself) have provided citations to back up the statement, those who disagree have cited only personal experience or personal opinion - "It's a common word down our way", etc. The comments by several other contributors show that they have not read my evidence - why should they? - and some of them do not appear even to have read the original exchange. If they had, they would know that the word was specifically directed by Malleus at the majority of administrators. User:SandyGeorgia, for example, seems to think that the word was "not directed at specific users". I am trusting the arbitrators on this one, to read the history and the evidence clearly and to recognise which contributors are just interested in stirring things up. I've been on wikipedia since 2002. In that time I've encountered many difficult and aggressive contributors; a substantial proportion of them believe themselves superior. Most of them are long gone. I console myself in the knowledge that I will still be here after the main participants in this debate have grown tired of the project and gone away. Deb ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your e-mail. Deb ( talk) 12:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes: Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - everyone should get into that project and actually start making things happening, it shouldn't be how it is now where the only people that stay are the people who're able to deal with crap because often the more meek people have a lot to say if given the chance... Wikipedia needs to be less like a warzone where people are liable to have their stuff deleted without reason at any moment with no attempts to talk... There needs to be more social, it needs to catch up with the rest of the internet it's still in the 90's -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg | Rubber duckies for you |
Happy Valentine's Day SY! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks but the one I'm looking for is "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life'? The Emergence of Pro-Life Feminism in Irish Anti-Abortion Discourses and Practices" in the Irish Journal of Feminist Studies; in the article you sent, there's brief discussion of "pro-life feminism" but it's not the focus so it would be better to look at an article where that is the focus. Appreciate the help! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the article! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sonicyouth. In response to your email, I've commented on Sarek's talk page about this issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy has had changes in the length of description of Sandra Fluke. It is currently quite minimal. If you have an opinion on how much biographical material on Sandra Fluke should be in the article, you can offer it on the talk page. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 17:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for going the extra mile to get that Oaks article for Pro-life feminism. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
would you consider undoing it? The Australia study as it stands places undue weight on its false classification. The procedures may very well be simply those who it threatened to file charges against. The greater context of withdrawn and not pursued is not irrelevant. It clarifies the uncertainty of these classifications.
Regarding your Rumney edit, it was clear that it was Rumney quoting Stewart. In your previous edit, you placed undue weight on criticism of Stewart by selectively quoting one of his findings.
thank you Godspiral ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sonicyouth86. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:29, 6 April 2012 (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. |