Welcome to Wikipedia, -sche! Thank you for your contributions. I am Cirt and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((helpme)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

— Cirt (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why, hello! It seems we've now welcomed each other to our respective wikis-of-origin. Nice! (I don't often sign in to WP, but I'm citing manita.) -sche (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User talk:-sche/Archive 1
• User talk:-sche/Archive 2
• User talk:-sche/Archive 3
• User talk:-sche/Archive 4
• User talk:-sche/Archive 5

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I want to thank you for all your hard work you did in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict‎ -- Shrike (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, thank you! :)
If only the questions about content / POV were as easy to resolve as the <ref> duplication, lol. -sche (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Less of a grin, and more of a hearty laugh from this edit. Thanks!! HouseOfChange (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Equality Act (United States). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You have been warned already. You must provide rationale on the talk pages before removing numerous properly cited sentences and their references. There are multiple editors working on this article. The talk page can be found hereDig _deeper ^talk 01:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Dig deeper! Wikipedia policies require that edits, such as your addition of poorly-sourced content of dubious WP:WEIGHT to the Equality Act article, have wp:Consensus. As talk page discussion has so far shown a lack of consenseus, ... well, you may find it informative to read WP:BRD! Continuing to edit-war may result in loss of editing privileges. Cheers, :) -sche (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you believe NBC and ABC are dubious sources? I agree with WP:BRD, especially the "discuss" part. I have been quite active on the article's talk page explaining the rationale for my edits and seeking the opinion of others. You have not responded to my proposals on the talk page, but simply have deleted large portions of the article, with no discussion or rationale on the talk page. If this were to occur on another page, would you not consider this vandalism?Dig _deeper ^talk 01:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sankarankovil, Tamil Nadu and Sankarankovil are obviously redundant articles about the same municipality, (which I noticed because they also have the same specific writing errors, which Typo Team Moss picks up). I should merge them when I have time, or anyone watching my talk page who has more time than me should feel free to. -sche (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. -sche (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also pinging @Mathglot:, @Mark Ironie:, To sum up where we left this: to simply go with the obvious flow of moving non-binary to nonbinary, then, of course, just moving all of these back to Genderqueer. Then, in an obvious progression, merge and move all LGBTQetc pages simply to Queer. Compress the hell out of it all. One article is enough. It's not that complicated. Compress it down to Q. Simple. Then we surrender to the inevitable and merge that to Queer heterosexuality and make it policy that only those who dropped out of art school can make the Pride Flag Pride Flags, which can only be carried by allies, but we will all be required to display on our userpages. They will probably have all the colors at that point, so probably no one will know what they mean, anyway. BLPs of heterosexuals shall be redirected to homosexual. Just because. I think this is a quite modest proposal, and there is no reason we shouldn't get started. If we want others to help we can move this discussion back to all of the talk pages of all of the articles in question, promptly. Because it's clear they really appreciate it. :) Good day, gentlebeings. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes @CorbieVreccan:, this progression is probable. I see that Budweiser is in the process of facilitating the merger of different Pride banners/flags already. By releasing cups representing the diverse communities, ^[1] this can only signal the beginning of consolidation of them for commercial use. When the weight and membership of the combined communities becomes a majority of the population, a combined flag will be designed. It will be a modest proposal but will find favour with many constituents. Recursively, Mark Ironie (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You follow my sister, right? Why? I know of all the folks who follow her. So (just to serve as an example) I know that Mathglot follows her, but she seems to get along better with Mathglot. So I guess it's understandable that she doesn't mind Mathglot following her. Why do you, though? If you say that you don't follow her, then how do you explain appearing at the Rose McGowan page soon after her to comment on non-binary stuff? Or the Talk:Discrimination against asexual people page soon after she made a comment there? In these and other instances, you never edited the pages before and appeared soon after she edited the page, which I think is because you just got through looking at her contribs. She may not care that you follow her, but it's off-putting to me. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had to look at your user page to (a) discern that you are apparently a longtime editor and not a driveby vandal spouting random gibberish, and (b) figure out who you were talking about. -sche (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No real answer? Man. Come on now, you even followed her to the Human sex ratio page. With the interesting pages she visits, I can't say I blame people wanting to follow her. If she's okay with you following her, I guess it's none of my business, but it has to be annoying for her. I know how she is about people following her unless she's comfortable with the situation. If you're following her because of political issues or some view she expressed, she ain't concerned much with politics. Maybe in the future she will be. Her edits don't need monitoring. It's just off-putting to me, partly because the last time she interacted with you was over the genderqueer page stuff. There was sketchy stuff happening there, and you two sorta butted heads. I think she's done with that page. I don't look like much from my contribs. I don't look like a longtime editor, but I edit fairly often as an IP and usually at my own place. I visit with her every week or so. I'm now having an unjust IP issue. So I have to edit with my registered account for a while. I'll leave you be now. Peace. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You accuse me of following somebody but I couldn't even tell from your comment who the subject of your inane conspiracy theory was, because I don't "follow" people. You should dial your paranoia back a bit. Not everything is about you, or your sister. (Which is not a slight on her; when we've interacted I've appreciated that her comments are based on research and reasoning—and in articles I watchlist I've seen her do good work to keep articles based on those things, too—even if different research and/or reasoning sometimes leads me to different positions.) I have thousands of pages on my watchlist and I notice when e.g. IPs change the pronouns on one (as they have on Lynn Breedlove, Rose McGowan, or Grace Dunham) and I try to look into whether the changes are right or not (sometimes they are, e.g. with Dunham, sometimes they're not, e.g. with McGowan and Breedlove). Flyer apparently watches the second of those three pages or also noticed it somehow, but just as she evidently doesn't watch the other two pages, there are probably pages she edits that I don't watch and hence never see (I can only say "probably" because I've never bothered to look through her contribs to see, even now). (Or, if you would prefer: Of course The Cabal follows Her, on Orders from the Deep State, Big Brother, and/or the Illumnati, whichever you prefer. You already know the reasons: the Cabal spelled them out in the letters on the far side of the Wikipedia logo globe.) -sche (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so we're on the same page about what you're saying, you're saying you're winding up at these pages you never edited before minutes, hours, or a day after my sister has edited them by chance? You never look at her contribs? OK. But what I see is stuff like how many times she edited the Human sex ratio page compared to how many times you edited it and the timing of your edits. Paranoia? You do know that an editor consistently showing up to a page they never edited before a little after another editor has edited the page is a pattern of editing that is considered when trying to determine if someone is being hounded, right? It's the primary way hounding is determined. I see it a lot at ANI. I'm not accusing you of hounding, but I do see you following her. I may not have her academic degrees, but I'm not stupid. I just wanted to know why you are following her. Instead of getting an honest answer, I got bitter replies. You're upset, but I didn't set out to make you upset. I'm not trolling. Trolling would get me blocked. You're not one of the bad guys I see stalking her, and I have seen bad guys stalking her. A lot of people have.

To your relief, I'm sure, I'm not going to go on about this. Collapse this section or remove the entire discussion, if you wish. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transgender history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page São Vicente (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. For years, almost no one had written anything with Johnson's correct birthdate. Most people writing didn't bother to talk to those who actually knew Johnson, and just assumed Rivera had told the truth about the Stonewall riots having taken place on Marsha's birthday. So we had "sources" with the wrong birth date... and edit wars. We had to put in primaries to correct it. It was not a good situation. I've added two sources with the right date now (but even those have some other errors). As this was such a point of contention, and as none of the secondary sources we have are without flaws, I'd like to leave the primaries in as backup. The reason the birth certificate scan should be an exception is it's not by some rando - it's in Randy Wicker's archive - Randy is who Marsha was living with, and that's the scan of Marsha's wallet contents. It's unusual/IAR, I know. But it's taken time to get any usable sources for this. The amount of misinformation out there about Marsha is massive. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		In recognition of your work improving the article on the preacher The Public Universal Friend, a very interesting figure I had never heard of until I came across the article a couple months ago. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Your gr8!
	Your amazing! Heyurgr8 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this is difficult for many people: centuries dates because of the confusion exactly with the dates: The 19th century ended on December 31, 1899. The 20th century began on January 1, 1900 and continued to December 31, 1999. The word "queer" in the late 19th century (meaning the late 1800's) meant peculiar or strange, not homosexual. That use of the word began in the late 20th century (c. 1980's). Please correct what I corrected concerning the date. How you have it now makes the article seem really unreliable.Chaos4tu (talk)

@Chaos4tu: I'm afraid you're mistaken; as the article body says, "an early recorded usage of the word in this sense was in an 1894 letter by John Sholto Douglas", hence the lead's statement that it dates to the late 1800s is correct. (It was also used as a self-identifier by some men in the earlier 1900s, well before the 1980s.) Cheers! :) -sche (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed this edit summary of yours at Causes of transsexuality, which was pretty long and inscrutable, not to mention unclickable. Instead, try coding it like this:

Undo revision [[Special:diff/926408912|926408912]] by [[Special:Contributions/Amd27999|Amd27999]]

and you’ll get a much shorter summary and a clickable version link. See the edit summary of this message for how it might appear in the History. Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi sche, I appreciate your concern about my edits in the article Qassem Soleimani. The points you have mentioned are important and I try to use them on my future edits. Thank You. Alex-h (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you edited the updated paragraph I uploaded to the James Shupe page. I tried to make sure that my proposed changes were okay before I uploaded the changes. My post in the Talk section of the Jame Shupe page was up for about 24 hours. During that time I received no comments. The information I presented is current and relies on sources used in other parts of his page and are correctly cited.

If you have some concerns with the writing I would appreciate that you engage in the Talk section of the James Shupe page before making any further edits.

Thanks, Mathezar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear - sche, could you please tell me exactly which parts of that was unsourced and misrepresented? You deleted over 20 sources only because one was blaze? Why should I seek consensus for addind information with multiple, widely trusted sources? The whole article is highly biased, so I only added other views in one paragraph, and you deleted. Yes, I am mentioned in the talk page, for using a persian language site (actually BBC, but in persian). My problem was that one user believed sources in other languages are not appropriate for use in "Wikipedia English". Is there any guidelines on not using sources in languages other than English? I doubt. So please clearly and exactly tell me which parts were unsourced or misinterpreted. I will add the paragraph again in 24 h if not answered (surely, with even more sources this time). Initially I thought you were really caring about the article, so I tagged you (by sending thanks) to check any issues associated with my edits (like the case of blaze, which I appreciate you for mentioning its statues), but I was apparently wrong. Ms96 (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks you intended "Lack of neutrality" and not "Haphazard editing" on the talk page, so I owe you an apology in this regard.Ms96 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! As this regards article content, I'm going to answer on the article's talk page. :)
I would suggest you try and get a consensus of other editors for your content before re-adding it (or else it will probably be removed again by someone). -sche (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your fast, constructive response! What you mentioned about the "unsourced" sections (... the intention was that the sources present after the second sentence also verified the first) is totally right. Regarding that specific sentence you mentioned, I remove it (Though I actually intended to insert another source), as you correctly mentioned it is off-topic and "protestors being killed at his orders is nowhere in the NYT article at all". Also, I delete Blaze. I will add an edited version in a couple of days, so please don't hesitate to make any other comments about any part of that paragraph (if you have time). regards Ms96 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi -sche, I'm writing to you because you're a sysop and maybe you could give me the information I need. What should a user do in case he notices the following situation? An anonymous reverted an edit, it was discovered that this anonymous was using a proxy so it was blocked and his revert undone, then a new registered user appears and restores the anonymous's version without making any other edit. It's very very likely that this new user is the anonymous who used the proxy, but he can't be using the same proxy because it's blocked, so an eventual CU request would lead to nothing except the discovery of a different proxy which wouldn't imply the user's block. I need an advice by somebody experienced. In case you aren't the most proper person to ask, please tell me whom else I should call on. Thanks! 5.171.105.77 (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm not a sysop on this project (merely a regular editor who's been around a while), but if you suspect sock puppetry, you could refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. However, if it's just a matter of an editor making one revert to one article, you could try posting on the talk page (soliciting WP:3Os or notifying relevant wikiprojects if the page has few watchers) and seeing if consensus can be reached with other editors about which version is better. If an editor continues to revert to a version that doesn't have consensus, it's likely other editors would undo their edits, and they could be reported to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -sche (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions (-: 5.171.122.56 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, thanks! GiantSnowman 09:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		I've noticed your consistent presence at COVID-19 pandemic, helping to clean up sections of the page that need it. Your work is appreciated! ((u|Sdkb)) talk 06:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, -sche, you did such a great job on Transgender history, I wonder if I could tempt you to look at Timeline of transgender history, and maybe work your same magic on it? It was created by copying trans-related stuff out of the four LGBT timeline articles (Timeline of LGBT history is the first one), so it's a strict subset of those four. Other than some section organization, bottom matter, and stylistic changes, I haven't changed a thing. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate both the compliment and your work putting the big new article together :) and I'll have a look.

I also want to say that while I understand that all these articles are all quite large, probably too large to combine without then splitting along a different axis of era or region, and maybe should also stay separate for other reasons, it does seem ... awkward? ... that we have LGBT articles and then separate T articles; it seems to inherently either segregate or duplicate T content, while there isn't (for example) a Timeline of gay rights separate from the LGBT one. (It also seems like Transgender history and this timeline article are liable to duplicate a not inconsiderable amount of content.) But I'm not sure what it would be best to do with regard to that, so I'm not proposing to change it at this time.

(This is also an issue on Wiktionary, where there's one category for "LGBT" vocabulary and then another category for "Transgender" vocabulary, and I perennially wonder: should everything be double-categorized? if so, why have the T cat? if not, why is T stuff segregated out of LGBT but LGBT is still called LGBT with the T?...)

-sche (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. This isn't about "separating 'T' from LGBT", it's about creating a cascade of articles in summary style, of which this article merely happens to be the first step of hopefully many steps to come.

I don't find it awkward at all, for this reason: there is no "separation" going on of 'T' from 'LGBT'. Whenever any article gets too big, we follow Summary style, reducing the size of the large article by turning it into a [[WP:G#Parent article|]], with the detail moved to the WP:G#Child articles. There is more than one way to slice and dice it, by time period is one, and the LGBT Timeline is already four separate articles, with the one limited to the 21st century already around 370,000 bytes. If I could wave a magic wand, and by analogy with the two-axis split at Timeline of World War II, which is subdivided both by theater and by year, do the same thing with Timeline of LGBT history, then we'd have it split two, possible three ways: by year, by region, by orientation. Different article organizations would be appropriate to different purposes, or the interests of different viewers, who could pick the appropriate timeline, just as they can now at Timeline of World War II.

Clearly the latter has been around longer and is more mature. But this is a volunteer project, and I don't have that magic wand, so I can only advance one step at a time. I chose this way for numerous reasons, only of which is that 'T' content is submerged in a sea of other detail at the LGBT timeline, which not as relevant, say, to someone in a trans studies class, trying to follow the sweep of history with regard to transgender events. (And it's only roughly chronological.) 'LGBT' has always been a messy, and uneasy ensemble. The analogy is far from perfect, but if World War II is a collection of separate theaters with some core goals in common, but separate driving forces, so it is for LGBT, even sliced in four pieces, most definitely.

Regarding the duplication of content, absolutely the timeline article will duplicate content. Just like the World War II timelines, sliced by theater or war, or via year, do the same; and like all of those duplicate content, from the detailed articles about individual battles or regions. Duplicating this content is completely okay; this happens all over the encyclopedia in any complex topic about history. There must be hundreds of articles about World War II, each offering its own particular frame for understanding something about the war, some by continent (European theatre of World War II), front (Western Front in World War II), country (France in World War II), region World War II in the Basque Country or city (Paris in World War II); or by military campaign (Battle of France, Normandy campaign) or battle (Battle of Caen); or chronologically by year (Timeline of World War II (1944)), 1944 in France). There is massive duplication here, all of it fine, in my opinion, and all useful in different contexts for framing a view of the war in a certain way. So, I'm not worried about duplication of content in the new timeline from either the LGBT timeline articles, or the Transgender history article.

My hope is that the new timeline will be seen not as a way of separating 'T' from 'LGBT', but merely as the first step in an overdue refactoring of a very large article, hopefully to be followed by additional steps. Looking forward in my crystal ball down the road a bit, I see a "Timeline of LGBT history" article reduced from 379kb to around 2,500 bytes (the current size of Timeline of World War II) with nothing but a bunch of links slicing and dicing the topic in several ways. Something has to be done, as the LGBT timeline is only going to get bigger meanwhile. This is just a baby step toward carrying out that vision; hopefully others will agree, and help. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some WP:JAGUAR comments: I think there are at least two factors at play here that people don't want to to talk about, in the first case, and don't much think about, in the second. The first is that T is in fact diverging in mindshare from LGBT, in at least some aspects. It's an artificial umbrella to start with, in which sexual preference categories that have much in common have been "married" to an unrelated gender-identity one (or ones, including non-binary and genderqueer) for socio-political expediency. The kinds of far-right politicians, and citizens who enable them, that are homophobes, and can't tell the difference between bisexuality and homosexuality, are also apt to be transphobes, and vice-versa; while those accepting of T people are probably also accepting of LGB people and vice versa. But they don't entirely share every agenda or goal or whatever. T activism is increasingly being pitted against L/G and kinda-sorta B legal protections (in ways that aren't consistent between jurisdictions – the conflicts hinge on specific words in specific laws/bills; thus there is little LGB–T conflict in the US but a whole lot of it in the UK, where TERFism seems to have originated and is close to a majority viewpoint). This is a real-world factional conflict on the left, and really doesn't have anything to do with WP, other than we're caught in the crossfire.

The second factor is more of an encyclopedic and information-architecture one: Topic A can be both a subset of Topic B and yet also a coequal "sibling" subject of Topic B simultaneously, just from different viewpoints/focuses. My canonical example of this is snooker and cue sports (and pocket billiards more specifically). Snooker, from one angle is a form of pocket billiards (pool), simply played with small balls and tight pockets on a large table. Very little of its mechanics and origins are unique. So, it is presented as a subset of Category:Cue sports, and relevant subcats of snooker (players, organizations, tournaments, etc.) are subcats of corresponding cue sports subcats. However, from a completely different angle that has nothing to do with historical origins and game mechanics, snooker is a distinct sport, and a major world one at that, entirely separately from all other cue sports. So Category:Snooker also exists as a category at the same levels (e.g. general sports categories) as Category:Cue_sports. Some people don't like this at first; they think it's an error or redundant, but it can be quickly explained to them. Something similar is at work here (and even relates to the first point). From a socio-political angle, T is mostly just part of LGBT; from a sexology and psychology and embryology and so forth angle, T has jack to do with LGB. Never mind that a T person might, by their own or someone else's definition, qualify as L or G or B, and the next T person over might not – but you can't simultaneously be a gay man and a lesbian, or a gay man and a bisexual man; the L, G, and B are mutually exclusive, but not with T. It's just a different kind of thing. To return to cue sports, we've evolved a stable situation in which snooker is mostly treated as a separate sport, with its own wikiproject, but is dual-categorized and shares certain basic articles with cue sports in general, such as Glossary of cue sports terms, and the articles on billiard tables, balls, cues, techniques, etc. Those do not have snooker-specific forks. Even History of snooker only goes back to its origins in some earlier pool games; it does not try to recapitulate the entire history of cue sports from a snooker-centric angle back to ancient times. This kind of hybrid approach is probably inevitable with the T in LGBT and some other letters in the extended versions of the acronym.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it interests anyone who watches my talk page, and so I find it later: a discussion at WP:RAQ (following earlier discussions) has resulted in the discovery of quite a few articles with long HTML-commented-out hidden sections of content, which need review. -sche (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Public Universal Friend you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for integrating various concerns and wording quibbles I raised. I think the resulting version you put into MOS:BIO is much less apt to attract hellfire than the drafts on the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eugene Gu on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m sorry for the comment about the quote in that article, I had not seen the amendment on MOS. Clearly my understanding of a broader convention was in conflict with a more specific one, which was decided by the community. I withdraw my statement and apologise! FWIW, that article is fascinating and one of the best written articles (IMHO) on Wikipedia, thank you fir taking it to GA.

I probably should stick to writing articles, I only decided to do some reviews as I utilised GA for my article on Kate Baker and felt I should probably help with the backlog on Wikipedia:Women in Green. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After waiting some time for a response from JxP, I have decided to be bold and promote Public Universal Friend to GA. Excellent article, fascinating, historical and yet surprisingly contemporary. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! :) -sche (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:B. R. Ambedkar on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jessica Yaniv on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Public Universal Friend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Public Universal Friend for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here I was wondering, when I saw the title, what COVID-19 page I had edited recently. :p (Victor and Corona?) -sche (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry! I have this thing where I mix up gender and coronavirus; this past year and a half has been very sexually confusing for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wiki. OsagePizza72 (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Please accept this Epic Barnstar for an epic job composing a clear, comprehensive, and comprehensible lead to the Transgender history article, and also as for your work expanding the article. Writing the lead for this article was a difficult task for a topic that spans ten thousand years of history and covers many hundreds of notable individuals and events. It's axiomatic that many people don't read past the lead of an article and Wikipedia being the top go-to resource that it is for people worldwide on almost any topic, this article was crying out for a decent lead involving a synthesis of a lot of disparate information—you provided an excellent one. Readers and researchers worldwide who are interested in the topic of Transgender history will be reading your words first before they delve into other sources, and possibly exclusively, for a long time. Thanks for a great job in improving this article, and the encyclopedia! Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check "flange" at List of animal names. The sketch is on YouTube, it's a good one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...or it may have been removed, possibly it was too funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha! I see that article says Not the Nine O'Clock News originated it, whereas Wiktionary currently only says they popularized it (as if it might've existed previously) ... is there a source for Not the Nine O'Clock News coining it, in which case I'll update the Wiktionary entry? -sche (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, this [1] doesn't actually say that. But here's the sketch:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]