User talk:Lilipo25

	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
  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,

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

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

The article

Congratulations! I hope that you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Happy New Year!

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

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

You discussed the reliability of Lesbian and Gay News at

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

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. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Newslinger Thanks, but I've only edited one article that could be described as being part of post-1992 politics and you don't seem to have sent this notice to any of the other editors there, including one who repeatedly vandalized the page with unsourced personal opinions this week. May I ask why only I received this? I did see your comment on the Reliable sources page disagreeing with my view that Lesbian & Gay News is more reliable than Pink News. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lilipo25, the above message is a standard notice issued to editors who demonstrate interest in a controversial topic area. I sent you this notice after the consensus in

post-1992 politics and gender and sexuality) mentioned near the top of Talk:Equality Act (United States). Many editors editing controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area, and anyone can send another editor a notice of this type. Please be aware of the rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 03:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If you would like to opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions at {{

Ds/aware}} to place an awareness banner on this page. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swagsevo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. — Newslinger talk 05:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been threatened with the release of what is apparently "personal information" about me that an admin (Newslinger) says they received in a "report" sent by email from another Wikipedia editor whom they won't name (nor will they say what is in this report), in retaliation for having expressed radical feminist views regarding a publication on the Reliable Sources board this morning. I am told by this admin that revealing my information is permitted under a Wikipedia policy called the "Policy on the Posting of Personal Information" [1], although I have not committed any of the infractions listed there (COI, harassment, paid editing or violation of the child protection policy). Nor have I committed sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, which they also say it covers.

This is a frightening and violating threat and it has made me physically ill, so I am quitting Wikipedia as soon as the current sockpuppet investigation which that same admin opened against me today is completed, as I believe my name deserves to be cleared and suspect the SPI would stop if I delete first (As I said, I have never had a sockpuppet account on Wikipedia, nor have I committed meatpuppetry). I tried to make articles less biased toward women and women's rights during the two years I was here. I largely failed and a certain contingent of editors will surely be happy to see me go, but I am sad to be leaving and see what work I was able to accomplish be undone.

I don't know which editor accessed my personal information or compiled a report about it and sent it to an admin, so I am not accusing anyone in particular of that, but I have seen many radical feminists doxxed and threatened with everything from rape to death when their personal information was released, and I can't take that chance. Whoever did it wins. Good luck to the two admins, who although I frequently disagreed with them, did try very hard to remain as fair and impartial as they could. Sorry for all the times I made your jobs difficult, El C and Girth Summit. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lilipo25

As an editor who came in contact with you in your early editing days to Authors Cricket Club I would be distressed if the project were to lose your valuable skills. Your trying to make articles move in a direction may be too hopeful when kicking against the pricks. Some of us just move to different areas to edit when such difficulties arise. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SovalValtos. Your comment means a lot and I appreciate it, but this is too much. It's hard enough for women editors here when the bullies are just other users. When they're admins making threats involving my personal life, there's no hope of fighting it. Thank you for always being a voice of reason and calm in a sea of turmoil, and good luck to you. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a man, from a cursory understanding of why you are leaving, I find the treatment you have recieved to be horrific, and I salute you in trying to stand up for women's rights. 86.187.160.54 (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to read about your targeted harassment, it is this harrassment that women receive that has made me want to help with the project turing women's red links blue. Within my 100 edits I have already felt this negativity from an individual which seems very aggressive. Thank you for the articles you have worked on and very disappointing that you have not been supported. N1CKchooseanothername (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very kind of you. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal: Here, go running to Newslinger with this while you're at it: Humans can't change sex. Nonbinary is made-up bullshit for people who desperately want to be able to say they're oppressed minorities when they aren't. Everyone on earth is either male or female (and if your only priority when it comes to women's rights is people with dicks but you still call yourself a feminist, you're almost certainly the former). Wikipedia may accommodate your need to feel special, but biological reality never will.

Armadillopteryx and Chillabit both behaved in an utterly cowardly, underhanded and violating manner by going looking for my private social media in order to get the upper hand in editing disputes with me and be able to bias discussion/articles unencumbered by any attempt at NPOV (on the RS page and the Equality Act page, respectively), and then by secretly emailing whatever they found to admins (Newslinger and Black Kite) who stand with them against NPOV in gender topics. And Newslinger and Black Kite are bullies misusing their admin powers to (successfully) bias a topic area.

That should keep you busy running around reporting for a while. Don't ping me this time, I don't need to know when I'm looking up the Battle of New Orleans or whatever that you have nothing better to do with your time than tattle to bully admins because I wrote the truth on my talk page. Flounce (epically, naturally). Lilipo25 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only comment because I saw the "science matters" tag on your user page but also the conflicting comment that biological-medical intersex conditions don't exist, or I at least perceived the claim as such. Children with the condition are typically assigned as one of the binary, but may later decide to transition or to recognize the ambiguity and condider themselves nonbinary. This of course doesn't account for all gender identification, the human mind being complex... Please disregard if I misunderstood your comment, —PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never suggested that intersex conditions don't exist, which is absurd. Of course they do. But you have no understanding of what they are. Intersex is not one condition; it is an umbrella term for approximately 40 different medical conditions, each one very different. And all intersex peope are male or female, just like everyone else on earth. Suggesting they are not is offensive. In fact, DSDs (Disorders of Sexual Development, the technical term for intersex conditions) are sex-specific. If they didn't belong to one sex or the other, they wouldn't have them.

Being intersex has NOTHING whatsoever to do with being transgender. Intersex people are no more or less likely to be transgender than anyone else. The vast majority of them are diagnosed with one of the DSDs at birth. The sex of most is apparent and in the case of those in which it is not, testing is done. There are rare cases where their condition escapes detection at birth and doesn't become apparent until years later. This in no way changes that they belong to one of the two biological sexes. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Your comment at Arbitration Enforcement was not acceptable. You could have restricted yourself to saying that your comment was not about the party you are Ibanned with, but you took the opportunity to make remarks about them that I can only interpret as personal attacks. I have no view on the original AE request, which still awaits review. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I care? I don't edit any more anyway. If people would stop pinging me while posting insults about me, I'd stop responding, too.. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you've asked not to be pinged, and that by replying to you I am going against your wishes, for which I apologise. I just wanted to let you know that you can set your preferences so that you will not receive e-mail notifications of pings - that way, if you aren't logged into your account, you will no longer be bothered by the pings. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user is talking about on-wiki pings (comment above: I don't need to know when I'm looking up the Battle of New Orleans or whatever ...), which you can also disable at the same location in your preferences: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Though logging out is a simpler solution. — Bilorv (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, although it's rather silly for one admin to place a second block for the same 'offense' that a different admin already placed one for. Sex in humans is binary and immutable and I won't pretend otherwise any more to satisfy Wikipedia's collective lie. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you have continued with more of the same even after being blocked, I have revoked your talk page access. If you wish to appeal the block, you may do so by contacting

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]