User talk:Ongepotchket

Hi! I recently joined the Electronic music WikiProject and saw you recently joined as well. Just wanted to see which articles you're working on now and what your music interests are. I noticed the project is currently "semi-active". Do you know how we can change it from semi-active to active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianakoz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Glad to see the project isn't dead. I see you've posted on a few user's pages, and I'm hoping that drums up some interest. Right now I am reworking Tiga's article and would like to add a lot of missing information about his albums, but I see information on talk pages offering contradictory advice on which sources are accepted for music articles. If it's U2 or Dave Matthews Band or something, certain sources are fine, but if it's an electronica artist then information from the same sources will be removed (as demonstrated by the Tiga article, and so many others). In general I would like to bring a lot of the electroclash-related pages to a higher quality. I know it's not a favored genre, but it's a historically relevant one. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ongepotchket, Please be aware that you have marked several edits as minor which are generally considered major. It is best advice to reserve minor edit markings only for those changes which do not add or remove content from articles, even category tags. A good example of a minor edit from your contribution list is your recent change to Reproductive health, which affects only formatting. Your most recent edit to Male Privilege, albeit removing unsourced content, is still considered major. You can find more information under

Sure, go ahead Onge. --BwB (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion on the issue of mentioning anarcha-feminism under the "influenced" section of the infobox in the Emma Goldman article. As you have been involved in the issue, I'd like to mention that the discussion is ongoing; and invite your participation. — Life in General (Talk) 02:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Like many that have been proposed thus far, it includes birth. That's been a rather major sticking point, unfortunately. NW (Talk) 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It wasn't my definition actually. I found it on Citizendium, and would not agree on it being used here. I was just using it as an example of the conciseness (rather than content) that could be accomplished easily in the lead of the abortion article if we would quit bean-plating over idealogical matters, most of which have their own wikipedia articles or sections. I know this has been a point of contention for years now and will continue to be. Input was requested, so I offered mine which is that I am not opposed, at this point, to stripping it down to the barest definition possible.Ongepotchket (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, I just re-read it. Where does it include birth? Ongepotchket (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you restored what I deleted and marked it as a change that wasn't discussed, however, I had put it on the page's talk page a week previous, as well as tried to draw attention to the page on the talk pages of WP: Feminism and WP: Women's History. Since I had seen no mention either way of what should be done in regards to the timeline situation, I posted my explanation on the talk page and went through with the matter. The information itself wasn't deleted; it was simply moved to the Timeline of reproductive rights legislation page, where it currently remains unedited since my last addition. Is there a reason why you restored it without commenting on the talk page? Was there something else I should have done? If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of the location of the timeline, I would be happy to. Scb3 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the mistake. I had multiple tabs open, and was reading the wrong talk page. I had noticed a huge amount of of content removed and what I thought was a lack of talk page discussion, which resulted in my editing too hastily. I will be more mindful in the future. :) Ongepotchket (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's no problem! It was just afraid I had done something wrong. If it's all right, then, I'll go in and remove the redundant content. Scb3 (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my change, a mistake that I can't explain on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr legumoto (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights movement, which is in a rather contentious editing situation right now. It is possible that yout removal of the word "theory" after "patriarchy" will be reverted. For example. I have been trying to check out the sources for a lot of first section, believing that they do not always support the claims in the article text. If you can do that, if you have access to the complete texts of the referenced articles, for example, you might want/be able to check them out? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the heads up. Yes, I am aware of the probationary history and contentious state of that article. My edits were more grammatical. The use of the phrase "patriarchy theory" in place of simply "patriarchy" is cumbersome. It was used twice in the article, which caused the article to read that much more sloppily. I removed the extraneous "theory" and marked the edits as minor. I'm not completely familiar with WP policies even after two years of editing, so feel free to offer any helpful input. Ongepotchket (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of the Kaffeeklatsch? It is a test area for women to hear and support each other. The idea came about as a result of a discussion at meta regarding my IdeaLab proposal (yet open) for WikiProject Women.

Now that the klatsch has survived an MfD and WMF legal has said that it does not violate the non discrimination policy,[2] I am looking for women editors who might like to join.

Although I have started a couple of discussions, they are not urgent. For now, the "Please introduce yourself" discussion is more important! I want to take it slow at first and build a small group before trying to address heavy topics or come up with big goals. For now, the klatsch is there as a sort of refuge. I hope you will consider joining, and invite other women editors, too, if you wish. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LB. Yes, we’ve spoken of it before. I appreciate the space, the invitation, and all you’ve done and continue to do. Your fortitude is badass and admirable. I will consider joining it, but you more than anybody probably understand the reluctance in doing so, I’m sure. Keep on keeping on, more of us have your back than you know. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the

  If

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of comedians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Kym Whitley]] ((born 1961)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, Ongepotchket. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ongepotchket. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]