User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian
Index
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 33.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| In recognition for your excellent arguments in AfD debates. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC) |
- @Gidonb 💕 Thank you for the kind words; I've enjoyed seeing your arguments as well! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Join the party
[edit]Talk:Antisemitism_on_Wikipedia#WTF Polygnotus (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
[edit]
|
Thank you for going to bat for me on wikimedia commons regarding Steven1991. I honestly just found out about this today. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC) |
- @Insanityclown1 No worries, I'm just sorry you're having to deal with the xwiki harrassment. Good luck on the exams! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
tb
[edit]See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/False accusations of antisemitism. Polygnotus (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
July 2025
[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Luis Manuel Carbonell Parra. When removing a maintenance template, please either ensure that the problem that the template refers to has been resolved, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as this change has been reverted. Take a look at getting started to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Large sections of this page have no sources, including his awards. Please do not remove tags added as part of NPP without rectifying the problem, Ldm1954 (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- For anybody curious, I removed a BLP more sources needed tag on the biography of a guy who died during the Obama administration. [1] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 11:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
A goat for you!
[edit].jpg)
Thanks for your recent work on Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada.
m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 19:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
In appreciation
[edit]
|
The Good Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Knitta Please retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC) |
- @AirshipJungleman29 I know we've have our differences at the GAN talk page, but genuinely thank you for the effort you put into to let other volunteers know their work on stuff like this is appreciated. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2025
[edit]
Announcements:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Speedy deletion declined: Philippines v Tajikistan (2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification)
[edit]Hello GreenLipstickLesbian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Philippines v Tajikistan (2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread the usernames. Yes, this was created as a violation of ZaDoraemonzu7's block, but it has since been nontrivially edited by other users (who I don't believe are ZD7's socks), making it still ineligible for G5. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa Your call; I personally didn't count the copyedits as
substantial
(slightly higher bar than trivial, imo). I respect the effort that went into this edit,[[2]] of course, but it mostly involved grammatical fixes such as fixing the tense of verbs. Useful, of course, but not substantial. But again, your call. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)- Actually, I've taken a look again, and I really don't think I can call the copyedits substantial, so there must be other edits you see as important enough to salvage. @Jlwoodwa Could you clarify which edits made by other users that you thought were substantial? Sorry if it feels like I'm being a pain, it's just I'd really rather not spend several hours on a likely non-notable article, double checking every sentence and reference, probably rewriting half of it because they were an awful writer who introduced a lot of OR, after the community had decided that this editor wasn't allowed to make articles anymore, solely because somebody changed "hurried" to "hurrying" and added that the subject "was known as the "Miracle of Manila"." (which... okay the source doesn't even say that, and I can only find one other person on the internet referring to it as that so goodness knows what was going on there). I mean, don't get be wrong, I will spend those hours if I have to - and will be, given the fact that I came across this article from the editor's CCI - but I'm not going to pretend to be pleased about it.On a slightly different note, how pointy would it be of me to absolute nuke the article down to the name, a couple categories and the fragments " but the Philippines managed to score a goal thanks to Stephan Schröck" and " In Yemen, the match was known as the "Miracle of Manila"" with a CN tag? Because removing the blocked editor's edits, and that's quite literally it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- The series of edits you linked by Hariboneagle927 go beyond simple copyediting. For instance,
tragic circumstance inside the country
is changed tocivil war
, and an irrelevant mention of beauty pageants is removed. I would not call that an insubstantial edit, and I don't think it should be deleted under G5 unless Haribon agrees to it. I'm not opposed to a different WP:TNT approach, whether it's stubifying, BLARing, or deleting via PROD or AfD. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)- @Jlwoodwa Thanks for responding and not making me invoke ADMINACCT too much on your first day. And as for the substantive nature of those edits, I disagree - those are still pretty gnomish trims and copyedits. (And yes, switching out a synonym or deleting an off-topic sentence fragment are copyedits, at least in my world and the few rare occasions where I've needed to have my work looked over by a professional copyeditor). Haribon hasn't been active since 2022, when they were warned and blocked for vandalism and harassment, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly feel like reaching out to them.To respond to your other point though, AfD and PROD really aren't great for CCI cleanup, for quite a few reasons. PROD because it can be refunded in an instant, AfD because it's primarily focused on notability, not content, and I either have to leave all the problematic content in and risk it being kept by community consensus (blanking it all after the AfD looks like sour grapes) or I have to do the blanking/rewriting first, which looks disingenuous to anybody viewing the history. BLARing is.... well, it saves the content so I really try to avoid doing that because there's a high chance of somebody bringing it back in good faith, having absolutely no idea that they're just introduced back a ton of problematic content. And then if anybody wants to delete the pointless redirect it leaves behind, they have to go through a whole dramafest at RfD for trying to backdoor delete content, or they go through a whole dramafest at AfD for restoring an article they don't believe should exist. But you've declined the CSD, so I suppose stubify it is. Are you going to watch the article now to make sure nobody puts the content back without checking it? Because people will do that, in good faith, you know, if you leave an edit sumary as vague as the one I've just had to. And I thin in this case that's quite likely to happen, given that this is literally all that's left. Sorry if my frustration is showing through a bit; I still don't see those as substantial edits, and it's very stressful for me to have to pull out ADMINACCT over a simple "which edits are you talking about?" type question. More broadly, it puts me in a really uncomfortable position when I have to escalate to get a relatively simple answer, and that's neither natural nor enjoyable for me. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Before I respond to the rest: Hariboneagle927 edited yesterday. I think you might be looking at the wrong user account. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies - I was moving too quickly and thought we were still talking about the editor who did the copyedits. No, Hariboneagle927 corrected a colour in the table and that's it.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, sorry; I think I got the diff order flipped in the tab I was looking at it in. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies - I was moving too quickly and thought we were still talking about the editor who did the copyedits. No, Hariboneagle927 corrected a colour in the table and that's it.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry GLL, but while I'd have G5'd from here back, that's already stretching it, and I'm not going to G5 something that's had this level of non-sock editing done to it. I was asked for a second opinion on this earlier and was pretty surprised you'd even tried tagging it. G5s are pretty contentious even when they haven't had any meaningful edits by others. There was a huge thread about this (at AN? VP? can't recall) a little ways back. And look at this bother over a draft that hadn't been edited except to be accepted by an AfC reviewer: [3]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Yeah, know the AN thread you're talking about. What a fun, completely massive waste of time that was with no actual benefit to anybody. But I do take your point in that G5s are the weirdest CSD in that they're pretty much all controversial (but so are G12s sometimes), but there's global and longstanding community consensus for them. I think you know me well enough to know my complete and utter lack of respect for the idea that just because something is controversial or contentious, means, not just that somebody won't perform the action, but that it shouldn't be performed. And yes, am aware of that DRV which ended in pretty solid consensus that an AfC reviewer's edits, despite involving (imo) a lot more mental labour than copyedits, did not rise to the level of substantial editing. But yeah, the article is ineligible now, no matter how you spin it. Have fun with the slowking sock cases, next time you work with other SPI people on them! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I think you know me well enough to know my complete and utter lack of respect
Oh, I know, and please, never change. fwiw, I think you have a solid TNT argument here, and would happily support deletion at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Yeah, know the AN thread you're talking about. What a fun, completely massive waste of time that was with no actual benefit to anybody. But I do take your point in that G5s are the weirdest CSD in that they're pretty much all controversial (but so are G12s sometimes), but there's global and longstanding community consensus for them. I think you know me well enough to know my complete and utter lack of respect for the idea that just because something is controversial or contentious, means, not just that somebody won't perform the action, but that it shouldn't be performed. And yes, am aware of that DRV which ended in pretty solid consensus that an AfC reviewer's edits, despite involving (imo) a lot more mental labour than copyedits, did not rise to the level of substantial editing. But yeah, the article is ineligible now, no matter how you spin it. Have fun with the slowking sock cases, next time you work with other SPI people on them! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Before I respond to the rest: Hariboneagle927 edited yesterday. I think you might be looking at the wrong user account. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa Thanks for responding and not making me invoke ADMINACCT too much on your first day. And as for the substantive nature of those edits, I disagree - those are still pretty gnomish trims and copyedits. (And yes, switching out a synonym or deleting an off-topic sentence fragment are copyedits, at least in my world and the few rare occasions where I've needed to have my work looked over by a professional copyeditor). Haribon hasn't been active since 2022, when they were warned and blocked for vandalism and harassment, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly feel like reaching out to them.To respond to your other point though, AfD and PROD really aren't great for CCI cleanup, for quite a few reasons. PROD because it can be refunded in an instant, AfD because it's primarily focused on notability, not content, and I either have to leave all the problematic content in and risk it being kept by community consensus (blanking it all after the AfD looks like sour grapes) or I have to do the blanking/rewriting first, which looks disingenuous to anybody viewing the history. BLARing is.... well, it saves the content so I really try to avoid doing that because there's a high chance of somebody bringing it back in good faith, having absolutely no idea that they're just introduced back a ton of problematic content. And then if anybody wants to delete the pointless redirect it leaves behind, they have to go through a whole dramafest at RfD for trying to backdoor delete content, or they go through a whole dramafest at AfD for restoring an article they don't believe should exist. But you've declined the CSD, so I suppose stubify it is. Are you going to watch the article now to make sure nobody puts the content back without checking it? Because people will do that, in good faith, you know, if you leave an edit sumary as vague as the one I've just had to. And I thin in this case that's quite likely to happen, given that this is literally all that's left. Sorry if my frustration is showing through a bit; I still don't see those as substantial edits, and it's very stressful for me to have to pull out ADMINACCT over a simple "which edits are you talking about?" type question. More broadly, it puts me in a really uncomfortable position when I have to escalate to get a relatively simple answer, and that's neither natural nor enjoyable for me. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- The series of edits you linked by Hariboneagle927 go beyond simple copyediting. For instance,
- Actually, I've taken a look again, and I really don't think I can call the copyedits substantial, so there must be other edits you see as important enough to salvage. @Jlwoodwa Could you clarify which edits made by other users that you thought were substantial? Sorry if it feels like I'm being a pain, it's just I'd really rather not spend several hours on a likely non-notable article, double checking every sentence and reference, probably rewriting half of it because they were an awful writer who introduced a lot of OR, after the community had decided that this editor wasn't allowed to make articles anymore, solely because somebody changed "hurried" to "hurrying" and added that the subject "was known as the "Miracle of Manila"." (which... okay the source doesn't even say that, and I can only find one other person on the internet referring to it as that so goodness knows what was going on there). I mean, don't get be wrong, I will spend those hours if I have to - and will be, given the fact that I came across this article from the editor's CCI - but I'm not going to pretend to be pleased about it.On a slightly different note, how pointy would it be of me to absolute nuke the article down to the name, a couple categories and the fragments " but the Philippines managed to score a goal thanks to Stephan Schröck" and " In Yemen, the match was known as the "Miracle of Manila"" with a CN tag? Because removing the blocked editor's edits, and that's quite literally it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa Your call; I personally didn't count the copyedits as
- At this point, I'm still not sure that the article meets the criteria for G5, but I'm no longer confident that it doesn't. I've reverted my decline (as it was, in any case, based on an initial misreading of the situation) and will leave it for another admin to evaluate. Thank you for your thorough explanations; I plan to spend some time at CCI to get a better sense of the tradeoffs here. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa I get what you were doing there, but at the point you restored the speedy tag, the article was by no means eligible for G5 anymore. I mean, I don't often mind it when articles I've substantially edited get G5-ed, but there's no way any given patrolling admin is going to know that. Have a good day. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that editors who support the article's deletion should be excluded from authorship for the purpose of G5; maybe "any given patrolling admin" might not agree, but I think asilvering does. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's the kind of scenario in which I will happily invoke WP:IAR. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that editors who support the article's deletion should be excluded from authorship for the purpose of G5; maybe "any given patrolling admin" might not agree, but I think asilvering does. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa I get what you were doing there, but at the point you restored the speedy tag, the article was by no means eligible for G5 anymore. I mean, I don't often mind it when articles I've substantially edited get G5-ed, but there's no way any given patrolling admin is going to know that. Have a good day. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
DCWC August update
[edit]We're a month into the 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest, with stiff competition at the top of the leaderboard already! Our current top five contestants are:
- Spookyaki (submissions) – 256 points, mostly from a handful of GAs about women's history in Latin America as well as the 1991 Haitian coup d'état.
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 229 points, back with a number of articles on abortion in various African countries.- simongraham (submissions) – 213 points, mainly from GAs on species of jumping spiders in both Africa and Azerbaijan.
PizzaKing13 (submissions) – 200 points, with five GAs on articles relating to Salvadoran politics, history, and griddle cakes.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) – 168 points from a few GAs, a few DYKs, and a few ITNs on athletes from a variety of countries.
Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier!
On behalf of the coordinators, we'd like to thank all the participants for helping to combat systemic bias on Wikipedia! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Two emails from me
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks!
[edit]Hey, I just wanted to thank you again for raising the discussion at ANI today. I desperately wanted to defuse the situation with SongRuyi, but I felt that any attempt to do so on their talk page would not have the desired result (having seen their previous screed in response to my plea for civility), and I was hanging back from taking it to ANI myself because I thought that would escalate things further and they would just burst from rage or something. The outcome is probably the best I might have hoped for. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)