This is an archive of past discussions with User:GreenLipstickLesbian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have no recollection of the basis on which I decided to grant that user autopatrolled status - since it was, as you said, back in 2010. Do you genuinely feel that they're doing enough copyvio to make their stuff problematic? I'll trust your judgment on this. DS (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven Yeah, 2010 is a pretty long time ago - so much can change! I hope you don't mind I took a week to get back to you. I think if it was just a one off mistake, I'd have left it. But given that it happened more than a few times... I think it might be for the best if somebody else checks their work for now. And again, sorry for going to you. I just didn't want to go to a dramaboard, and I don't like privately asking admins to undo each others actions when I can at all help it. (Maybe that's just a me thing though). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
Hi, GreenLipstickLesbian, and thanks for your efforts helping other users understand our complex rules about attribution of copied and translated material from other projects. I noticed you helping out a user with copy issues at their talk page back in May, in particular, this explanation about whether and why images from Commons are/aren't exempt from copy attribution requirements at Wikipedia when we include images from Commons. You had the right idea, but not quite the right explanation. At Wikipedia, any creative content copied (or translated) from another Wikipedia, sister project, or other compatibly licensed project may be copied in whole or in part and pasted into a Wikipedia article without any problem, as long as the attribution rules, which you are familiar with and help other users with, are followed. So far, so good.
Seaweed farm in Uroa, Zanzibar No part of this image was copied to this page, it exists only at Commons, therefore no copy attribution is required per WP:CWW.
The deal with images at Commons, is that we do not copy them into a Wikipedia article, we just link them (as you pointed out in your reply). Same thing when we linking to a foreign Wikipedia article; that doesn't require attribution, either, because the content was not copied over—it remains in the original location, only the link is present at the Wikipedia article, and no attribution required for a link.As an example, when we use template {{interlanguage links}}, as in these 190,000 links, no attribution is required; it's just a link to someplace else. Same ting for an image: the actual picture bits are not copied over from Commons to Wikipedia, they remain at Commons, and nothing is copied, so no attribution is required.
Maybe a better example, is template {{Excerpt}}. As an example of it, go to the Algae article, section Algae § Cultivation and browse that section: scroll down a bit, note the two subsections on Seaweed farming, and Bioreactors; note the five images, and 12 paragraphs of text. None of that material is actually in the wikicode of the page, it is all excerpted (i.e., transcluded) from three different articles, starting with the Algaculture article for the top part. That whole, long section with the two subsections and the five images, is only 164 bytes—edit it, and see. The editors of that section could have chosen to copy all of that content from the three articles, and had they done that, then the requirements of copy attribution would have come into play, and would have been required. But if you transclude or otherwise display text (as with an excerpt) or display an image (as with [{File:Seaweed farm uroa zanzibar.jpg|thumb|Seaweed farm]]) then you haven't copied anything, the text bits and the image bits do not reside here, they reside on the Algaculture page, or at Commons, nothing ws copied, and no attribution is required.
When you go to Commons and upload an image, then the image bits *are* stored there, and you'll notice how they require an attribution statement (e.g., 'This is my own work') or they won't even let you upload it. Once the image is stored at Commons with the proper license, there is no further requirement to attribute it at Wikipedia (or at any other sister project) because you aren't copying the image bits to Wikipedia, you are just displaying the image (stored at Commons) on the Wikipedia page via the filename, not copying the image somehow into the wikicode of the page. (There is no way to even do that; if one could copy image bits into the wikicode, then articles would blow up in size from a few tens of kilobytes to many dozens of megabytes.) And that is why Commons images do not require attribution. (But note in the hypothetical case that someone at Commons wrote quite a long, detailed description of their image, say, several hundred words, including sources where they got it from, then if you wanted to copy their long description from the Commons file page and paste it into a new section of your Seaweed farming article, then you *would* have to attribute it.) Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, it's a busy time of the year! @Mathglot, this is the most meticulous, amazingly detailed response to something I think anybody's ever written me on Wikipedia. Thank you so much - it's wonderfully clear. So the way we handle images is somewhat analogous to transclusions? I can wrap my head around that, I think. Seriously, thank you. This is a wonderful explanation. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm so glad you liked it, truly. I enjoy trying to clarify things—I just haven't figured out how to do it in a brief account. Now when someone asks you the same question, you're going to have to figure out how to say in in just a couple of sentences, because 99% of editors will fall asleep before they get to the end of my explanation! But I'm glad you didn't, and when you figure out a pithy, brief way to say it to some questioner, please ping me to it.
To your question: yes, it is something like transclusion, although it happens at a different point in the processing. It all starts when a user clicks Seaweed farming at Wikipedia, causing their browser to issue an Http GET request to our server at en.wikipedia.org. If our articles were written in pure Html, then the web server would just send the article page Html back to the user's browser, which would start building the page, grabbing pieces that are stored elsewhere, like images specified in the Html <img> tag from some other server and inserting it into the right spot on the page.
But the pages are written in wikicode, not Html, so when the user asks for an article, our server gets the wikicode for the page, and starts translating it into Html. I don't know the internals, but probably it does a preliminary pass first, going through the whole wikicode, stopping every time it hits a template, and replacing ("transcluding") the template with whatever wikicode the template resolves to: bold text, converted units, whatever. So far, the images are still just [[File:FOO.jpg|Caption here]] code. After all the templates have been replaced, it starts over at the top, translating the whole thing into Html that a browser can understand: wikilinks become <a> tags, [[File:FOO.jpg|...]] becomes <img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/FOO.jpg"> and so on, and then it sends the Html page to the browser—still no image bits, just that <img> tag with a 'src' link where to find it. It is the user's browser's business to go get the image from the Commons server.
So, yes, displaying images is kind of like transclusion, with the difference in who does it, and when: the Wikipedia server transcludes all the templates into wikicode when a browser asks for an article, and then translates all the wikicode into Html and sends it to the browser; all the images are just img tags with links at that point. The browser interprets the Html, and asks other servers, i.e. the one at Commons, for images every time it sees an <img> tag with a src attribute saying where the image is stored. (Caveat: I don't know wikimedia server internals; conceptually, this is correct, but there are other ways to do it, such as depth-first, meaning, translate and transclude all in one step, but that doesn't really affect the explanation.) And if you are still not asleep by now, you deserve a medal! Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Sandbox edit
I often get around to formatting the source names after I finish writing the content, but feel free to make any edits that you like! I don't mind letting others edit my sandbox Fathoms Below(talk)16:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I was a little bit worried Id overstepped, so thank you! <3 Generic citation names in the author parameter are my personal pet peeve. On a slightly different note, I'm actually interested by the number of times Polytopia shows up mentioned in regular academic publishing. Nothing SIGCOV, of course, just passing mentions- it seems a non-zero number of people like using it as an example of some mechanism. Who'd have guessed that? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of this, is there any easy way to see a list of all these? It seems like a pretty chill task to deal with individual revisions instead of trying to make sense of how CCI works. Clovermoss🍀(talk)06:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss All current redaction requests get listed in Category:Requested RD1 redactions. You have to double check, of course - sometimes people request rd1 redactions for material that's public domain (such as US government works), and some scientific papers and governments publish under a creative commons license but it's not always obvious. But you can also skip the ones that look difficult, and somebody else will get to them.
On 13 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anchorage White Raven, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a raven in Anchorage, Alaska(pictured), ate tater tots and toast, fought over ice cream, and disassembled a streetlamp? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anchorage White Raven. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anchorage White Raven), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
The first time I've ever seen you around was like 5 minutes ago when I saw your Teahouse comments. Your uplifting comments intrigued me, so I was looking at your user page, edits, talk page and such and felt my heart grow a smile reading the way you communicate with others, specifically to new editors who need our kindness the most. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! TheWikiToby (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@TheWikiToby: Oh gosh, opening up my talk page and seeing this message absolutely made my day! Your kind words are much appreciated, thank you. I've seen you around as well- and you've always left me with a positive feeling towards you. So really, I should be thanking you for all you do! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Di (they-them) No, thank you so much for starting it off! I loved reading about Kamala so much- growing up, we had an elephant at my local zoo. Her name was Maggie, but she used to have a roommate, Annie, who also painted. The zoo framed her paintings, so looking at the ones Kamala did brought me back. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Oh wow... I really don't know what to say here! Holy cow, thanks guys! I love you all so much right now, and all five (‽‽‽‽‽) of you are people who make me proud to be an editor on Wikipedia.
@The4lines I've said this before, but you're so dedicated and hard working in copyright, and you've been so helpful and encouraging, there are times where I feel like I don't deserve to think of you as a friend. You make me proud to know you, and to be a copyright editor. :) And sorry for being a terribly communicator recently - but just know that you're an amazing person and editor.
@MPGuy2824 You're somebody I look up to in NPP - I admire your dedication and expertise, and especially your Herculean efforts to conquer the redirect backlog! With 14,000 reviews, you're a literal legend. And I admire your content work as well, during the DCWC, I learned so much from your lists! And I also admired and remembered how you had twice as many reviews as submissions during that contest. Do you know how great that is?
@Queen of Hearts When you went for ALECT, I actually said "Finally!" out loud! (much to the confusion of my cat, lol). And I was so happy when you passed - and proved that you were the queen of at least 389 Wikipedian hearts.💕 You're such a warm positive force on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia discord. And you're doing wonderfully as an administrator.
@HouseBlaster Category royalty! I make lots of jokes about categories and how I barely understand them- but they're so important, and I'm grateful we have an admin like you in charge of them. You're a wonderful editor, and I admire how thoughtful and meticulous you are, and you treat newbies and other editors.
@TechnoSquirrel69 Thank you so much for writing this - my little heart doesn't quite know how to respond so I guess I'll say: I've got 4 DYKS now. 😛 But, more seriously, you'll note that they were all from recently. When I signed up for the DCWC, I said I wanted to try and push myself into the content processes. Before that, I'd never done a DYK by myself before. I barely knew how the process worked, and I was so scared to get involved! I know I only submitted one entry for the contest, but without it, and without feeling encouraged and supported by my fellow "competitors" and you guys, the co-ordinators, I think I'd probably still have no DYKS to my name. Seriously. You're indirectly responsible for a decent amount of the content I've written now. Including this amazing raven that I now have so many pictures of on my talk. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much, GLL! It's always lovely to see the impact my work has on other people, and I'm glad I played a part in the nudge that led you towards more content and DYK explorations. Here's to many more! (Also, "queen of at least 389 Wikipedian hearts 💕" is a quote for the ages.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Your work at CCI is truly commendable. It is deeply appreciated by this editor who will not touch that area with a ten foot pole. Happy holidays :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Congrats GLL! You're well deserving of this award. Thanks for all the work you do at CCI and copypatrol, you're a valuable editor to have around. If you ever want to chat, you know where to find me :) The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)21:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Crosshall_cross
As I mainly edit and communicate within Wikimedia Commons I am not quite sure whether this is the proper method to establish a connection to you concerning a subject you just edited meantime while I was still adding to the article Crosshall_cross. Just noticed a few minutes ago that some text had been removed and/or altered.
I am aware that images from external sources that are not in the public domain may not be used within the Wiki realm.
And I am also aware that I should reformulate in my own words any text I have found elsewhere.
But I wasn't aware that I must not even cite text that supports one's understanding of the subject, even if it is more than 70 years old, and which is explicitly declared as being a citation.
What about links? Any hindrances that must be observed?
FACT: it's now well over midnight here in Germany, so I'll immediately remove all the text I published after your interception at 21:24 hrs and will attempt to find a suitable text form in the coming days.
I'll inform you when I have completed a corrected version. OK with that?
By the way, it was really fun contributing to Wikipedia by exploring all these sources that refer to the Crosshall cross. I certainly hadn't expected to discover that many. I won't give up ;-) .
Hello GreenLipstickLesbian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Carolingian Coinage and the Vikings. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Homosexuality in Islam (book). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Thank you @GreenLipstickLesbian for reaching out, references you provied are actually two book reviews which are personal views on the book and Reviews often contain personal opinions and interpretations of a book, which can vary greatly between reviewers, making it difficult to establish objective facts thus book reviews alone are not considered reliable enough to be used as primary references on Wikipedia; while they can provide valuable insights and perspectives on a book, they are often subjective opinions and may not be considered sufficiently factual to serve as the sole source for information on a Wikipedia page. As per WP:BOOK we have 5 main criteria and passing atleast one criteria would make the book notable, can you show me which of the criteria it passes please? ANUwrites08:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @SilverLocust for this reminder, but I think it doesn't even pass WP:BOOKCRIT#1 reminding you that the criter finishes with words; This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Can you take a look at the first reference please? I think it's written/published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd who owns Tandonline where the second source is written.
Comment: Tandfonline looks trivial since anyone can submit such review. All I asked was additional references and atleast good book structure as required at WP:BOOK.
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Thanks for your contributions to The Big Book of Masturbation. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and There is a reading list that includes reliable sources, and these can be used to create an article on this book.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
@Klbrain ... okay, so you've moved this to draft space for both having no sources and ... having sources? It's a stub. It's fully compliant with all policies and guidelinnes. No, it's not a GA, but it's fine in main space. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Sources exist, which is why I didn't propose it for deletion. Further reading, with no citations, doesn't make the text referenced. Klbrain (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that readers might be better served by having a page on the author, Martha Cornog, where her set of books can be discussed. However, if you'd like to push on with the current article, I think that in its current state, the draft article still isn't ready for main space, so I wouldn't move it - but you can try submitting it for review and getting another opinion. Even better - spend a few minutes improving it! Klbrain (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: you'll recall that I was concerned about the quality of the article, not the notability of the sources. However, you're right - I probably should have just marked it with no footnotes rather than draftifying. Klbrain (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope you understand why I reverted your action for future reference. Also, is there a reason you marked the article as unreviewed? I performed all the usual checks on it before moving it back to mainspace (and automatically marking it reviewed), so I don't think there's any further need for input from NPP at this point. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I have talk page watchers now? I feel so fancy! And yeah, I swear there must be something about academic book stubs that really trips the filters. Thanks for taking care of it! And hopefully I'll get to expanding it soon - the book is availible on Internet Archive, last I checked. I love the Internet Archive. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.
Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.
Hi! i've seen a lot of Wikipedia articles in WikiProject Korea do the same thing like what i did but they never been removed. Aidillia(talk)07:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Aidillia That sort of depends what you mean by "rephrase". If you just mean swap a few words around then no, that's a form a close paraphrasing. External sources on Wikipedia can only be used for information, not words. When it comes to plot summaries and character descriptions, these are best written by somebody who has seen the show and is writing based from their own memory of the show.
Hi GreenLipstickLesbian. Thank you for your work on One Wing (eagle). Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi, @Taabii! Yes, when I'm making academic book stubs like this, I tend to call the "References" section the "Further reading" section. I do this so people know that there is plenty of information in the references that I haven't incorporated into the article yet. This is fine when it comes to really basic book stubs, which really only require a few general references to allow other people to confirm that the book is notable. I hope that answers your question. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Please don't get Srivin blocked. He's a fantastic editor, just his grasp of English is limited, yet far better from the time he joined. I think the copyvio content is from earlier when he joined Wiki. I think he now knows we must not copy content like that per WP:COPYVIO. Perhaps you could instead open Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Srivin. Meanwhile, this needs closure, and I'll volunteer if I get desktop time. Kailash29792(talk)05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Kailash29792, and thanks for this message, and the additional context. Srivin is really lucky to have a friend like you, because I was actually thinking about looking into his edits, to see if he needed to be blocked from the article space. But I believe you that this problem was most likely confined to their earlier days, and your explanation (that he was still learning English) is very reasonable. Hopefully a CCI won't be needed, given the fact that he copied a synopsis (and even some administrators don't know we're not allowed to copy those).
And hopefully you get desktop time soon, because that CCI looks like it's been open for long enough! I can try and cross a few articles off today. I see some Legends of Tommorrow articles on it, and that's one of my favourite TV shows, so hopefully I'll find working the CCI fun. If I have trouble accessing sources, would you mind if I ask you to check some individual edits for me, even on mobile? No worries if that's not possible right now, and again, thank you for your message. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Butter made from smashed nuts It's not, though. The CYC link only links to the basic table used for decoding standardized ball bands; it's useful if you wish to deal with yarn, or deal with research material and patterns dealing with yarn that was manufactured in the late 20th/21st century in North America. However, for much of human history, and in the rest of the world, other systems have been in place. Many vintage knitting patterns, and ergo many books on vintage knitting patterns, will make reference to the old UK sizing system (before they went metric). These older needle sizes, due to their similarities to the US needle sizes, are often confused by modern researchers and knitters - I've even seen this foul up experienced knitters working on the Ravelry database. Similarly, the CYC chart uses their own names for each of their categories of yarn, based on wraps per inch irrc. Those alternative names they list are much more common in everyday speech, pattern books, and knitting-related materials from former commonwealth countries/the UK. The blog has actually tied these names to their country of origin, and their chart will quickly reveal to readers that the "ply"-based terminology, somewhat diverged from the actual concept of plying, especially in the fashion yarn world, is much more common in UK yarns, pattern books, and knitting books. However, it does have other uses; I believe Özbel's translator used the terminology, though I may be misremembering? It's very common in many of the original EZ books and televion series, that much I'm sure of. The blog also gives what sorts of garments are typically made with each weight of yarn; maybe outsiders and new knitters struggle to understand this, but the weight of the yarn combined with the size of the needles affects the drape and sturdiness of the resulting fabric. This isn't emphasized as much in many modern sources, which is a shame because when these are not taken under appropriate consideration, the actual garment itself will disintegrate or felt from the friction of every-day use. Obviously, I'm not putting that in Wiki-voice, but it's useful information for an external link, no? Anyways, the CYC source doesn't reflect this; the blog does. The blog also gives standard abbreviations used by many publications. They're accurate, not found in the other links, and, for obvious reasons, much more useful as a link than written out on the page in full. Unfortunately, it has become a trend amongst digital designers to forgo these abbreviations, or use custom abbreviations and lock them away in some glossaries. This is a new phenomenon, and when combined with the fact that many older knitters would simply have these abbreviations memorized, it's easy to see how these terms have become more lost on the modern internet. Just try and show a North American knitter a Drops pattern, and see what they do with it! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that's where the confusion is coming from! Yes, I know the CYC does that. The Cafe Knits site specifically translates from US and metric to a sizing system that pre-dates metric. You're not the first person to gets those two things confused, and nor do I suspect you'll be the last. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Urtica linearifolia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
An acoustic Douglas squirrel, for your viewing pleasure. —TSI hope you're doing alright, GLL, and I'm glad you decided to step away for the moment. I'm not expecting any response, obviously — I hope your time off is productive. And if you don't mind more fauna on your talk page, allow me to return the favor! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Ha, I was wondering why that K-pop stuff my kids listen to sounds so odd. Hey, no problem: I bet this was caused by some pull-down menu; easy to misclick. Good luck with it, and thanks for working on articles that see little traffic. I for one appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@Drmies Nope, I don't even have that excuse because I was manually typing in category names! Just pure, stupid autopilot :P . And thanks - honestly, I'm not doing much, just trying to make our book categories at least somewhat less inconsistent than they currently are. I should try and actually get back into writing - speaking of Korean Kurdish culture, I've got some interesting books about knitting in remote Anatolian villages. This conversation has reminded me that I really ought to find a home on Wiki for some of the information in it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great. I read a book about the Tarim mummies a while ago and it impressed upon me how important textiles in the larger sense were. If I remember correctly, the author basically traced the spread of culture and technology by way of the shuttle, I believe, and it made me think that I must have grown up in a culture where "female" technologies were just greatly underappreciated, because that was totally new to me, and I thought I knew some things. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chinese names for the God of Abrahamic religions, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Urtica linearifolia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
Done. -- asilvering (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
