I noticed your involvement in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic computer science topics.
The project has undergone a name change since then and has grown substantially (see Portal:Contents/Outlines), but is subject to the same sort of potshots and ludicrous arguments as it was back in 2006.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines.
I thought you might find the parallels amusing. The Transhumanist 12:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, T. Anthony. I was looking at the list of Catholic Wikipedians because I was curious how many were sysops. But my question is: when I hover my pointer over a username, the box pops up, and at the bottom of the box (sometimes) it lists the user's "rights". Often, the first item in the list is an asterisk. What the heck does that asterisk mean? Thank you, and keep the Faith! -- Kenatipo speak! 23:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I actually haven't checked my user categories for awhile. I also don't seem to be getting what you're getting unless I misunderstand you. Still I'll leave this conversation up as there's apparently interest in it.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 07:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you are interested in the biography articles about jazz musicians. I often add infoboxes to articles that have photos, but in the case of Jim Blackley, because the lead mentions that he is a drum professor, maybe you will handle it? I know the majority of musician articles use the same basic infobox but there's a distiction made for teachers, Opera singers, etc. Thanks.
In Frank R. Stockton: "He supported himself as an alleged hot dog eating champion until his father's death in 1860; he broke the world record by eating 2.5 hot dogs and buns in 60 seconds." This lasted off/on for about three years. It was off/on because a copy-vio version of the article, that did not have it, had to be reverted. Anyway I'm pretty certain it's vandalism as it was started by an anonymous user who edited once, no biography I find mentions it, and judging by the article hot dog the term "hot dog" didn't even exist until the 1880s.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 21:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edits to List_of_disability_rights_activists - you my friend, are awesome - I've removed the prod and will get a bit of work done on the article once my workload dies down a bit. Thank you! Failedwizard ( talk) 10:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I'm think I might cut some of them down a bit. I'm worried some contain non-notable entries and such.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The above category (Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo), which you created in 2007, has been proposed for deletion. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of notable persons who formerly identified as either atheists or agnostics, but then developed belief in a deity or deities. In some countries the percentage of those professing "no belief" is growing. [1] A 2008 Pew Forum study reported that 3.9% of Americans were raised without religion, but later affiliated with a religious group. The same study reported that 12.7% of Americans were unaffiliated despite being raised in a particular faith. [2]
Although winding down the lack of women in Wikipedia has been mentioned online so I thought I'd list some things of potential significance there.
First a link to my " User:T. Anthony/Women in Red", which contains a variety of women who have articles in non-English Wikipedia. Some of said articles are classed as "good articles" in their respective Wikis and a few are of women who had notable political power.
Here's some notable women with fairly short to very short articles.
Here's some women's magazines with high circulation but stubby or mediocre articles.
Finally here's a few films that are apparently more popular with women than men and could maybe be improved or expanded as articles.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello again.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello T. Anthony! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
It looks like they're not working on most pages I check.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know, I've added all the List of former RELIGION articles I could find to the AfD of former atheists and agnostics. Ncboy2010 ( talk) 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding this article. I planned to work on it today, but team work feels really nice. TrailerTrack ( talk) 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Called User:T. Anthony/From Simple English. Basically stuff I find in Simple, but don't feel like doing here on my own. Either because it's models, don't care about that, or laziness. Some might not be notable enough. I may or may not keep it around. I haven't done a red-link list in nearly five years, it seems, so it's maybe a surprise.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 10:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
for industry! In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC) |
There are proposals regarding these lists:
And should be like past proposals for the 20th- and 21st-century lists. Please comment. tahc chat 05:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irena Jurgielewiczowa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Polish writer Irena Jurgielewiczowa was also an underground teacher and a resistance fighter in WWII? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irena Jurgielewiczowa. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi when creating articles for skiers please follow an example like here [2]. Thanks. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 08:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please use Template:Cite books rather than direct links; you can paste them to [3] and get a nicely formatted link in seconds. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you maintain a a list of noteworthy Women who have no English Language wntry: "Women in Red". I am preparing a translation from the Spanish Language page for Esther Ballestrino. NFW1877 ( talk) 12:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)NFW1877
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see there's a tool where I can look up more on articles I started. Like how many editors they've had and their popularity. The list articles look to be my most popular, but Marina Silva (which I started, but has mostly been by others) is newsworthy of late and gaining attention. I figured articles I started on TV shows might be popular, but the article on Christy (TV series) was more popular than I expected.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 03:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
These were some red-links that sounded potentially significant to me that I had on lists, but moved to add visibility. I guess I put many of these in the archive only and nowhere else.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello T. Anthony,
You may want to add some RS to
Edwin Hunt. At the moment the article has no third party references, and the only external link included seems to be broken. --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
sure? Victuallers ( talk) 08:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Even a short stub to start is still better than nothing at all — I likely wouldn't have gotten to him for months, if at all, if somebody hadn't started it, and there's still technically a lot more than could still be done to improve it than I did last night. Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggest this is best as as wiktionary entry.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theonym is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article title until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..
μηδείς ( talk) 02:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Its WHM soon - see my page. How can we best get your list involved? Victuallers ( talk) 15:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. Your list will feature. If you do have some thoughts ... Victuallers ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see there's a tool where I can look up more on articles I started. Like how many editors they've had and their popularity. The list articles look to be my most popular, but Marina Silva (which I started, but has mostly been by others) is newsworthy of late and gaining attention. I figured articles I started on TV shows might be popular, but the article on Christy (TV series) was more popular than I expected.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 03:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
These were some red-links that sounded potentially significant to me that I had on lists, but moved to add visibility. I guess I put many of these in the archive only and nowhere else.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello T. Anthony,
You may want to add some RS to
Edwin Hunt. At the moment the article has no third party references, and the only external link included seems to be broken. --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
sure? Victuallers ( talk) 08:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Even a short stub to start is still better than nothing at all — I likely wouldn't have gotten to him for months, if at all, if somebody hadn't started it, and there's still technically a lot more than could still be done to improve it than I did last night. Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggest this is best as as wiktionary entry.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theonym is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article title until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..
μηδείς ( talk) 02:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Its WHM soon - see my page. How can we best get your list involved? Victuallers ( talk) 15:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. Your list will feature. If you do have some thoughts ... Victuallers ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I had this before, but bringing it back as there's renewed interest in women's coverage. It's me looking for some notable, or likely notable, women with fairly short or problematic articles.
Here's some women's magazines with high circulation but stubby or mediocre articles.
Finally here's three films that are apparently more popular with women than men and could maybe be improved or expanded as articles.
Be careful as I'd advise you not to stalk me across article to revert my edits or I will make a formal complaint and call for an investigation. You moved from Wolf Hall to Agatha Barbara. That's no accident. Contaldo80 ( talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe more of my list items will start turning blue. Although so far it seems to work best when translating from Spanish and you still have to whip things into shape.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 10:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Now this is a belated piece of information. Last weekend I gave a talk with user:Rosiestep at Wikimania. We proposed a new user group and a project to address the content gender gap. I mentioned your list as a cool name and "in a rush" the project was renamed "Women in Red". So I hope you see this as a compliment. The project aims to spend a year making a difference. We need lists of "missing women" and we need editors who are interested in mitigating this problem. So a) Hope you don't mind but Wikiproject Women in Red has been formed... b) could we transclude your list to the project? c) Would you care to join us in the project and maybe continue to maintain the list? Victuallers ( talk) 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Created subpage, where they are ordered by iws. Note, that there are dublicates - got 4 Wikipedia data. Maybe it will help. If needed I can make such lists further, just say some parameters/categories. Oh, and if you find that list useful, then probably tou could move it your own subpage. If not - then nevermind. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in
Women in Red and for your participation in the virtual
Women in Leadership Edit-a-thon, 7-20 September 2015. It was a resounding success with over 160 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated! We'll keep you posted on future events. --
Ipigott (
talk)
09:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
![]()
|
Thank you for your participation in the
Women in Architecture Virtual Edit-a-thon, 15–25 October 2015, sponsored by the
Guggenheim Museum, and hosted by
Women in Red. In addition to upgrades, we created about 170 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated! --
Ipigott (
talk)
15:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
![]() ![]()
|
More up my alley than architecture, so hopefully I'll do a bit more. I might be getting ill though.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I had this before, but bringing it back as there's renewed interest in women's coverage. It's me looking for some notable, or likely notable, women with fairly short or problematic articles.
Here's some women's magazines with high circulation but stubby or mediocre articles.
Finally here's three films that are apparently more popular with women than men and could maybe be improved or expanded as articles.
Be careful as I'd advise you not to stalk me across article to revert my edits or I will make a formal complaint and call for an investigation. You moved from Wolf Hall to Agatha Barbara. That's no accident. Contaldo80 ( talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe more of my list items will start turning blue. Although so far it seems to work best when translating from Spanish and you still have to whip things into shape.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 10:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Now this is a belated piece of information. Last weekend I gave a talk with user:Rosiestep at Wikimania. We proposed a new user group and a project to address the content gender gap. I mentioned your list as a cool name and "in a rush" the project was renamed "Women in Red". So I hope you see this as a compliment. The project aims to spend a year making a difference. We need lists of "missing women" and we need editors who are interested in mitigating this problem. So a) Hope you don't mind but Wikiproject Women in Red has been formed... b) could we transclude your list to the project? c) Would you care to join us in the project and maybe continue to maintain the list? Victuallers ( talk) 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Created subpage, where they are ordered by iws. Note, that there are dublicates - got 4 Wikipedia data. Maybe it will help. If needed I can make such lists further, just say some parameters/categories. Oh, and if you find that list useful, then probably tou could move it your own subpage. If not - then nevermind. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the
Women in Science Virtual Edit-a-thon, 8 to 29 November 2015, hosted by
Women in Red together with
Women scientists. It was held in parallel with a
meet up at the
New York Academy of Sciences on 22 November. In addition to improvements, we created well over 300 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated!
Hope you will also join us for the WiR Women in Religion Virtual Edit-a-thon from 5 to 15 December.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Women in Music | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation | |
---|---|
Black Women's History online edit-a-thon ![]()
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the | |
---|---|
![]()
(... check out our next event) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The unaffiliated group provides a good example of the high degree of religious movement that has taken place in the U.S. Overall, 3.9% of the adult population reports being raised without any particular religious affiliation but later affiliating with a religious group. However, more than three times as many people (12.7% of the adult population overall) were raised in a particular faith but have since become unaffiliated with any religious group.