User talk:Pburka

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pburka. 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)

Reverted my edit[edit]

This is absolutely not a big deal, but I wanted to let you know that I was just editing a single sentence to make it sound better. I was not the Wikipedia editor who provided the original information, so therefore, I am not able to provide a "citable source" on the Trammel_hook Wikipedia page. Thank you.

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beauty School Dropout: Sorry about that. I misinterpreted the diff and thought you'd added the sentence. Pburka (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I'm the witch who is always scolding newbies about citing their sources, LOL. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"non-diffusing categories"[edit]

Hi User:Pburka, re your restoring edits here, here and here, I wonder could you direct me to the defintion of "non-diffusing categories" and to where the applicability is made apparent at the pages of those three Categories? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure! There's a good explanation here: Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing subcategories. There's also a relevant discussion specifically about categories of women here: Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default. Pburka (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Assuming that one hasn't ever see those discussions, how is one expected to realise that Category:Pseudonymous writers is not a simple parent Category of Category:Pseudonymous women writers and thus redundant? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The categories Category:Pseudonymous women writers and Category:Victorian women writers both include boxes at the top (via a template) which indicates that they're non-diffusing subcategories. Pburka (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It must have been a case of "box blindness" on my part. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.64% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
  • Our priorities this month:

WiR Loves Pride Singers and Songwriters Women in GLAM Geofocus: Russia/USSR #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest merger[edit]

What would you think about merging the Tearoom Trade article with the one about Laud Humphreys? to be merged with The Tearoom Trade article is pretty outdated, and it is poorly sourced. It is also unbalanced in that it focuses on the research ethics issue, and not on the study itself. You seem to be the last editor who commented on the Tearoom Trade article, which is why I am pinging you.AnaSoc (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)