User talk:Equivamp: Difference between revisions

If you try to contact me I will get back with you as soon as possible.

Draft:Monthly meeting concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monthly meeting, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Monthly meeting

Hello, Equivamp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monthly meeting".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! GamerPro64 01:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, it appears that you've participated in the back-and-forth discussion of whether to keep the introductory statement on LGBT culture. If you would like to discuss what you disagree with or want to see there, please give your opinion on the talk page -- specifically at this link. puggo (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
168		Thai cat (talk)	Add sources
3,467		Holodomor (talk)	Add sources
347		LGBT rights in Iran (talk)	Add sources
190		Gender essentialism (talk)	Add sources
485		Transgender flags (talk)	Add sources
7		Greta Schiller (talk)	Add sources
124		Abbe Lane (talk)	Cleanup
241		Horns (novel) (talk)	Cleanup
67		Gay Shame (talk)	Cleanup
1,474		Handkerchief code (talk)	Expand
400		Legal recognition of non-binary gender (talk)	Expand
161		LGBT movements in the United States (talk)	Expand
561		Oppression (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
175		Gender neutrality in genderless languages (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
109		Travesti (gender identity) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,180		Rainbow flag (LGBT) (talk)	Merge
952		LGBT slang (talk)	Merge
216		Gage Creed (talk)	Merge
187		Alexis Carrel (talk)	Wikify
137		Achille Starace (talk)	Wikify
12		National LGBT Cancer Network (talk)	Wikify
16		Marxism and the Oppression of Women (talk)	Orphan
23		Feminism of the 99% (talk)	Orphan
11		Quaker music (talk)	Orphan
74		Transmedicalism (talk)	Stub
4		Gurneyite (talk)	Stub
119		Kye Allums (talk)	Stub
9		March against Homophobia and Transphobia (talk)	Stub
18		Aaron Devor (talk)	Stub
30		Anne Lawrence (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not know why you keep erasing edit

The sources are from 1906 and are open sourced material published on Project Gutenberg. WTH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlipHist (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

NOT REPOSITORY

It's quoting relevant short paragraphs that makes perfect historical sense. It's not like I quote the whole book. I could write the same stuff, but it literally said it word for word. Why would I link and write my own BS (ie plagiarized) when it clearly says what I would've written anyway? It's all properly cited and linked. I'm a historian, people should see what was said historically (primary sources) than making their own BS. It'll make it more credible than wantonly writing journal pieces. Half of what's edited in some of these articles are conjectures or linking from less than credible journals or blogs or social science publishments. But somehow those don't get edited out. It's historical and used by academics, open source, too old to copyright and digitized by Project Gutenberg. I don't see anything wrong with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4D00:B80:FD44:84B6:2DA6:2EAA (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)