User talk:Lilipo25: Difference between revisions

	The Don Quixote Award
	Sometimes you see what should be done but the obstacles are insurmountable. Don't let it get you down. Your contributions to Wikipedia are important. On to the next windmill! Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have a lump in my throat right now. I really needed that - thank you!!

I saw, after the fact, what you'd been dealing with, and I really admire your tenacity and care about doing the right thing for the encyclopedia. I hope you don't let the experiences at that one article discourage you. And there are so many articles that could use your expertise, ones that don't come with a battlefield! Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lilipo25 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penn's Creek massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Penn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made some small changes to the lead of the Penn's Creek massacre article, which I think improve the wording - if you don't think my changes are improvements, I have no problem with you reverting them - I don't want to upset the extensive work you have done on the article - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Penn's Creek massacre 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 Fiamh -- Fiamh (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lilipo25 (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Penn's Creek massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Penn's Creek massacre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fiamh -- Fiamh (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I hope that you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Happy New Year! Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 11:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Fiamh! I am very happy to hear this. I'm going to continue editing the article following your instructions - I still have some more OCLC numbers to add to sources and have found a contemporary journal article that can be used as a source instead of Leininger & LeRoy's first-person account. Thanks again, and Happy New Year to you, too! Lilipo25 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And more congratulations from an editor who has been admiring your work from the start.SovalValtos (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, SovalValtos! I'm so happy to have my first good article! I've learned a lot about Wikipedia editing while working on it. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mysticdan (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

Template:Z33

Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Sargeant, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

97198 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

97198 Thank you! Lilipo25 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fred Sargeant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fred Sargeant was one of the gay rights activists who proposed the first Christopher Street Liberation Day—now the NYC Pride March—to commemorate the Stonewall riots? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Sargeant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fred Sargeant), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to invite you to watch Talk:Frankopan family for further comments on the dispute you had about a year ago, regarding the Frankopan article section. For now, I've reverted the material.

--Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you reverted my correction on the Carnegie Medal page. I can see there's some confusion in the sources, but the I. W. Cornwall article gives Wolfran following the Dictionary of International Biography and The International Authors and Writer's Who's Who. I think consistency calls for Wolfran, but I'll leave it to you. -- Robina Fox (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're smart enough and have been here long enough to know what the issues with this edit are. Please try to be serious when editing the article namespace and not spiteful towards content you disagree with on a personal level. — Bilorv (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bilorv This is an encyclopedia. It is not meant to be a detailed list of each and every grievance that a highly biased and contentious source (Pink News) with a longtime vendetta against the article's subject has against him. But if you will insist upon including every such grievance, they must at least be accurate. Describing him as attacking a letter from a trans group without stating that he in fact criticized - as did human rights groups, women's groups and numerous newspaper op-eds - the head of Amnesty International Ireland calling for women to be stripped of their political representation if they disagree with gender ideology's effect on their rights is dishonest, biased and has no intention other than slandering the article's subject. Please do not make personal comments such as the ones you made in the edit notes and in the above comment to me, thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting here to avoid bloat on the talk page for other readers, but would you mind correcting your comment at Talk:Graham Linehan from I responded to Bilorv where he wrote to me, on my own talk page, and he made no effort to post here before reverting back twice. to correctly read ... reverting back once.? Cheers. — Bilorv (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Hello. This is a message about recent disruptive editing, which could easily be perceived as edit-warring behaviour, on the LGB Alliance article. As you know, the talk page has had discussion and a consensus has been arrived at. You have openly accepted this, but persist in editing the article away from this version regardless. It is quite possible that you have positive ideas for the article, that I and other editors would be quite happy to implement, but the way to make this happen (with respect the relevant material) is now to make these suggestions on the talk page and, should they command a consensus, they will be implemented. Disruptive editing is absolutely not the way to go about this. Thanks. Awoma (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what are you talking about now, Awoma?? I edited it with YOUR agreement that either source was "fine"! I changed to the Wikipedia-approved RS instead of the other one that doesn't meet RS criteria. The only other edit I made was to fix a broken Wikilink. Stop making accusations of "disruptive editing" when there hasn't been any. This is exasperating. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now edit-warring. Awoma (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know what edit-warring is? Fixing a broken Wikilink is not edit-warring, and these messages with accusations like this are odd and starting to feel a bit uncomfortable. Shall we ask an admin to step in before it gets any more out of hand? Lilipo25 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much welcome this, yes. Awoma (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed. Girth Summit, you may well want to kill me for this, but as you are the Admin who intervened during the last issue between Awoma and I on 4 October [1] followed by discussion on Awoma's Talk Page [2], I think it has to be you who follows up.

Awoma is currently sending me these notices of "disruptive editing" and "edit warring" regarding the LGB Alliance page, and also making the accusation on that Talk Page. This is currently in regard to my changing a source Awoma used from a non-reviewed website with partially user-generated content ("Open Democracy") to the (London) Times, which is a WP:RS [3]. I changed the source after Awoma agreed on the Talk Page that both sources were "fine" [4]. Awoma's last revision of my edits has actually been reverted not by me but by a different editor with the edit note that my changes were non-controversial and not disruptive [5] but Awoma still sent the notice of edit warring (above) to me.

So I am sorry to bother you with this but Awoma has agreed here to seek the intervention of an Admin before this gets out of hand like the October discussion did. Thank you for your help. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm making dinner at the moment, so don't expect immediate action, but I'll be happy to take a look - it might be tomorrow before I get around to it though. Awoma can you explain what the specific issue is - what diffs are we talking about? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious from reading the discussion what the issue is, but I think we both know what your decision will be. Awoma (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma, I'm genuinely confused about why you think you know what my decision would be - I have no beef with you, and goodness knows I've told Lilipo enough times when I think she is in the wrong. You have accused another editor of editing disruptively, and edit warring, which is a serious charge. The onus isn't on me to dig through the histories of the article its talk page, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your accusations, or you should withdraw them. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma Perhaps I should clarify what it is that I'm asking. Lilipo has provided some diffs in her post above about using the Open Democracy / The Times as a source. Is that what you're bothered about, or is it something else? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm confused" lol no you're not. The obviously abusive and disruptive behaviour is seen throughout these discussions: [6] [7] and these edits were made with no attempt to engage in repeated requests for discussion, and despite general consensus against: [8] [9] [10]. It's all so confusing isn't it? Awoma (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma, are you accusing me of lying? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. You're just really, really confused. Awoma (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma, I'll review those diffs in the morning. You need to stop assuming bad faith and making hostile mocking responses to other editors; if I'd seen you speak to someone else the way you've spoken to me in this thread, I'd have blocked your account. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do if you saw Lilipo25 making repeated abusive comments to multiple editors? I guess we'll find out. Awoma (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're deflecting Awoma, I'm talking about your attitude here. It needs to change. I'll look at your diffs and take any necessary action in the morning. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude is simply that I know you won't do anything about this. That's just obvious to me. If you do, fair enough, but asking me to pretend I think otherwise is ridiculous. As I said, we both know exactly what the outcome is going to be. There's no virtue at all in acting like your decision here is in any way unpredictable. Awoma (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but Awoma, I specifically asked you before I contacted Girth Summit if you thought we should ask an admin to intercede in our dispute here Shall we ask an admin to step in before it gets any more out of hand? and you replied I would very much welcome this, yes. Why did you say you'd welcome this if you think it's obvious that he is going to do nothing before he starts? Lilipo25 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This particular admin has repeatedly overlooked and excused your abuse of multiple editors. That's why you ask him each time - you also know what the outcome will be. Awoma (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I only know two admins, and it's a safe bet neither one is particularly fond of me. Nor is either adverse to telling me I'm wrong. Girth is not quick to impose sanctions on anyone (including you, as you've seen, so I'd think you'd be happy about that).

• This is the first time I have asked Girth Summit - or any admin - to intercede between you and me. Girth appears to have intervened on 4 October because he was watching the Graham Linehan talk page when you apparently called me a 'transphobe' (or else someone else notified him without telling me) ; Girth redacted the insult before I ever even saw it and I wasn't aware until later that had happened. You are welcome to check my User Contributions for that date and see I never asked Girth or anyone else to be involved.

• I asked Girth this time specifically because he was aware of the history, having been involved the last time. I can assure you I would have rather asked another admin, having already annoyed this one this week and being well aware that it is never a good idea for a user to stay too much on a Wikipedia admin's radar.

At any rate, I will bow out now and we can leave it until Girth gets to it tomorrow. Have a good night. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read through those discussions, and looked at the recent editing. Thoughts as follows:

• Lilipo, you are unnecessarily personalising issues at times in those discussions. I also see you apologising at least once, which is good, but it would be best to adhere to WP:TPG at all times. For example, instead of saying "you are exhausting", you could simply say "this is exhausting". Instead of suggesting that another editor is biased, explain that you think the proposed text does not adhere closely enough to the sources. It's worth repeating: focus on content, don't comment on the contributor. If you do that at all times, discussions will run more smoothly and you will find it easier to come to consensus about content.
• Awoma, you wrote "It's a real shame that posts like this containing further needless insults are treated as fine on wikipedia. We can do better!". That is a fine sentiment, and I agree with it. I don't see anything that Lilipo has said to or about you, however, which approaches the level of incivility and hostility that you have directed towards me above. As an admin, I don't deserve a higher level of civility than other editors are due, but I do deserve the same level - I'd ask you to treat others as you would like to be treated, even if you harbour negative thoughts about them. If you think I have acted improperly, here or in the past, the remedy is not to direct sarcastic remarks towards me, it is to ask for review at a venue such as WP:AN, which you are welcome to do at any time.
• With regards to the content dispute, I see a level of general agreement in the discussion with Awoma's thoughts about issues with the opening of the lead, but nothing approaching a formal consensus of the exact wording; this is underlined by the fact that one of the people who expressed general agreement with Awoma later reinstated some of Lilipo's changes after Awoma reverted them. There was a point yesterday when you were both edit warring (an edit skirmish, perhaps?), but I don't think either of you breached 3RR and it has stopped now, so I'm not considering sanctions at this point. There are a number of editors who appear to be active on the page at the moment; if you cannot agree on the exact wording between yourselves, you could consider having an RfC, with two (or more) alternative versions of the lead. That will draw more editors to the page, and would allow a formal consensus to be established, which all parties would then have to gain consensus to change.

I hope that's all clear, I'll be happy to address any other questions or (civil) comments you want to make. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]