User talk:The Vintage Feminist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A page you started (The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, The Vintage Feminist!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hospital articles[edit]

Hi. You seem to be adding a social work portal to numerous hospital articles where this would not appear to be enhancing these articles. Hospitals are not a sub-category of social-care. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Health and social care is becoming more integrated in Scotland, but please desist from spamming multiple hospital articles with a portal that is not directly relevant.Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You are sequential adding a social work portal to articles even despite there being no mention of social work in the article, in facilities where the type of care provided is not social care. Please understand that would appear to be spamming, which needs to be challenged. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry if my reaction to your addition to these pages has caused you any upset. I admit it was harsh of me to use a phrase like "spamming" which can refer to some unpleasant behaviours. I guess your motivations were genuine and that you were aiming to be constructive. I recognise that there was not any commercial motivation in your actions. I had been concerned that I was seeing a systematic addition of unrelated material to a number of articles despite my attempts to discuss this further. I hope that we can make some progress discussing this at the WP:hospital talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab proposal[edit]

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxen[edit]

As a question, what information would you like to see in an infobox for A Rape on Campus that isn't part of the first sentence of the lead? This feels like a case of a Disinfobox and the box would be a wedge for POV pushers. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox request on Parthenogenesis[edit]

Hello, you recently requested an infobox on Parthenogenesis. As a primarily biological article, I'm not sure what kind of infobox would be appropriate, at least in Category:Infobox templates. Since you added the request to the Gender Studies project banner (a Wikipedia area I'm less familiar with), did you have any particular infoboxes or navboxes in mind that would be pertinent in the context of the article? Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing about the Androgyny and Transgender articles. Not everything has an appropriate infobox or needs one. LadyofShalott 00:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I was wondering similarly regarding this and this matter. And by "wondering," I mean that it seems that you are tagging all these talk pages simply because you don't see an infobox in the articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that you replied here on LadyofShalott's talk page. I prefer to keep discussion centralized (see WP:TALKCENT), so I am replying here. What you stated there is not a solid reason to tag these articles as needing an infobox. They likely don't need an infobox unless one already exists for them. And even in the case that infoboxes do exist for them, they still might not need one. WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes. I am likely to revert you on some of these infobox tags you've added. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"What you stated there is not a solid reason to tag these articles as needing an infobox." Why isn't it?
"WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes." Isn't that just a matter of opinion?
It strikes me that there are no infoboxes at all within Category:LGBT templates and that is merely a case of a infobox request not having been put in yet. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your "Why isn't it?" question, I feel that it isn't for the reasons I stated above. Once again, as seen here, you have needlessly requested an infobox. That article does not need an infobox; as is currently seen in it, it has a relevant sidebar at the top of the article and a sexual abuse template at its bottom; that is all that it needs. Is that my opinion? Yes. And I'm sure that it would be the opinion of others if I started a WP:RfC on the matter at that talk page. You are going around tagging all of these articles with a "needs an infobox" alert as though they need them. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles don't have infoboxes and do well without them. An infobox distracts our readers from the lead, and infoboxes or similar can take up a good portion of the lead, as in this case (an addiction glossary); so, yes, it is my opinion that WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes. You have had queries and/or complaints about the infobox tags you are adding, and you are likely to get more queries and/or complaints about them. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have had one complaint, yours, and I have read it and replied to it. "yes, it is my opinion that WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes" - fine, in that case we will agree to disagree. You go your way I will go mine. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Guerillero, Animalparty, LadyofShalott do not seem pleased with your infobox tags; that, in addition to my query/complaint, is why I stated, "You have had queries and/or complaints about the infobox tags you are adding." And as for going "my way," Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and you are coming across articles that I have on my WP:Watchlist; so you are coming "my way." If you mean that I should go ahead and revert you, since you clearly do not want to discuss the matter, I will then. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Theirs were queries, if they "do not seem pleased" it is because you have chosen to interpret it that way. By "you go your way I will go mine", I simply mean that I have read what you have to say, I have answered it and I have nothing further to add. Please put your comments to the Wikipedia community on the talk pages of the articles that you have on your watchlist as per WP:INFOBOXUSE, or as you've already said, at WP:RfC, rather than making the same point over and over on my talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If their comments only seem like queries and that they are not displeased by your tags, then that is because, unless they state otherwise, you have chosen to interpret those comments that way. Guerillero stated above, "This feels like a case of a Disinfobox and the box would be a wedge for POV pushers." And LadyofShalott stated, "Not everything has an appropriate infobox or needs one.", which is exactly the point I was getting across above, and is why I agreed with her. Those comments certainly do give an "I'm not pleased with your tags" impression. As for all this disagreement being a matter of how I view things, we can certainly open this topic up to wider community discussion, so that you can see that it is not simply an "it's only you" matter. I have not repeated myself over and over on your talk page. But, yes, my discussion with you on this matter has run its course. I have reverted you at some articles, and will not press further on this topic unless one or more WP:Edit wars result and/or it is addressed at the article talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me state it more clearly: I do not agree with you that these articles should have infoboxes. Since you think they do, the onus is on you to show how such an infobox would be useful. You have not done so. LadyofShalott 15:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your admirable additions to Wikipedia![edit]

WPGS barnstar2.png The WikiProject Gender Studies Award
for your excellent contributions to gender studies and feminism. DStrassmann (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only[edit]

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation) only. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • You've given a great response, but I won't be able to run the interview in a report with just your answers. Do you know anybody else who might want to participate, and would you invite them, because otherwise I'll be forced to wipe the page. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 08:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Soldier Systems[edit]

You appear to have added more links to soldiersystems.net, via your draft page User:The Vintage Feminist/Edgar Brothers and other pages, than anyone else on Wikipedia.[1] I'm trying to discover the degree of editorial oversight or firearms expertise embodied in the website. However they're basically anonymous and opaque. Do you have any knowledge of their operations or the people behind it? Unless some more information appears it's hard to make a determination of their reliability. So far, it appears to be a glorified blog. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Soldier_Systems_soldiersystems.net in case you'd like to add any input. Rezin (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for more background but your participation is appreciated. Rezin (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Disability listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiProject Disability. Since you had some involvement with the WikiProject Disability redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Social work portal[edit]

Hi The Vintage Feminist! I note that you've recently added a link to the Social Welfare and Social Work portal on a number of pages I'm interested in. Adding portal links is really meant for portals that are finished, rather than under construction, as this portal appears to be. Otherwise you are driving traffic to a page lacking much content and full of redlinked sections. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png I saw you reformatting some citations, and I'm dropping by to say that I like your username. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! & another female aviator[edit]

Thanks for all the work you did on Bonnie Tiburzi @The Vintage Feminist:. I've just drafted an article on British aviator Draft:Yvonne Sintes. Please improve her article if you can! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurohealth.ie[edit]

Hi: Thanks for comments on European Institute of Women's Health .. EUROHEALTH.IE

I think this may have been the first entry I submitted to Wikipedia.

I put up the original article and was not aware that anyone was questioning their validity and importance. While a small organisation , they are the ones who put women's health onto the European political agenda and have written reports for the EU, European Parliament and have attended UN and other international meetings as experts.

Today they organised and delivered an international meeting in Brussels:

Expert Workshops on Sex and Gender in Medicines Regulation and Medical Education 4th March 2015, 0900-1730. Room TRE7701, 7th floor, Trèves Building, 74 Rue de Trèves. European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels

I am a bit surprised that no notification was given on this topic or maybe I am being nieve...

They are currently in 4 major international EU funded projects.

MM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaguire (talkcontribs) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Information and communication technologies for development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley (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) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Solow–Swan model[edit]

I appreciate when people clean up reference information (I do it all the time all over Wikipedia), but why did you here add the DOI information both in the designated field |doi= and again in the |url= parameter? This is redudant information, isn't it? --bender235 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just a personal choice thing, so that the name of the article has a hyperlink and the doi number can also be read (even without clicking on the link). Different editors do it different ways. Looking at help pages / advice etc. here suggests that it is fine (unless you know of some policy and/or consensus to the contrary that I'm not aware of).
The training video states "fill in as many fields as you can", it then goes on to show doi and ISSN being filled in, I've never really bothered with ISSN. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I just saw some of your edits on pages I watch. I agree that a URL reference to a book DOI can still be useful, even if the DOI is also listed in the DOI field. Often enough, I can find a different URL to point to, but I would never consider it an error to see the URL field pointing to a DOI page for a book. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy or guideline, but I don't think this is good practice. In some case, you also added the |jstor= ID, which in combination with DOI and URL then gives thrice the same information. This is link overkill in my opinion. But maybe we should seek broader consensus for this. --bender235 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)