User talk:Spaceharper

Pork

Hi, good job with the new meat dish categories; however, we've got a number of pork items that are actually "Pork products" and not really "Pork dishes," like Salumi or Lardo and Lap cheung (which is a type of pork sausage). Do you think a "Pork products" category is warranted? Badagnani (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could be worth it, if there's enough things to put in it. --Alynna (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		You seem to do an awful lot but don't shout about it, don't get into disputes and don't wikilawyer. This is the first barnstar I've deemed fit to hand out :] Rushyo (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Alynna (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Egg dishes

How would you think about a new category Category:Egg dishes? That could go under Category:Eggs, which would leave miscellaneous non-food things like Egg rolling in Category:Eggs. Badagnani (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I went ahead and created it. Will populate when I have time, unless you get to it first. --Alynna (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Spaceharper, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Gender of God

Hi. Thanks for your kind words. I tried improving the Christianity section to bring it back in scope, and I was rewarded with a barrage of condescending complaints on the Talk page for my trouble. It's nice to get some appreciation for my efforts. Thanks again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:3RR is a bright-line restriction, not the right to 3 reversions. You were in fact edit warring. The proper response to edit warring is almost never edit warring yourself, barring very specific exceptions.--Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I got a bit overexcited. I'll try to keep a cooler head in the future. --Alynna (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

typo

I think you have a typo in the quote. -- Banjeboi 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. Fixed. --Alynna (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob! -- Banjeboi 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ethnoreligious

Hi Fellow Editor, I just wanted to thank you for the work on the above article. It was a bit of a mess. I am keen to tighten it up further. The list outside the legally defined ethnoreligious groups, do you think it maybe a good idea to get some fsort of reference for each to prevent people from adding groups "willy nilly"? Thanks --Sikh-History 09:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the list of legally defined ethnoreligious groups in the UK might be complete (not sure though). But we should definitely source the top-level "List of ethnoreligious groups". A source for each one saying that it's an ethnoreligious group should be findable. --Alynna (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have tagged individually the ones that need citation. I managed to find links for Jews and Sikhs. I think possibly Romany Gypsy too, but no citations for others. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Top, bottom, versatile

Why do you deny the obvious? --Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean, "Why did you revert my copy-paste move of Top and bottom to Top, bottom, versatile?". I did so (and intend to do so again momentarily) because it was a copy-paste move, because it was undiscussed, and because the new name should probably be Top, bottom, and versatile. You should always use the "move" tab to rename pages. And it's good form to suggest a move on the talk page before performing it - let alone before performing it again when someone's reverted you. --Alynna (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Authonomy notability

Alynna please see my comments about Authonomy on the associated Talk page. While I can see your reservations about notability, the size of the community membership is probably larger than half of the towns listed in Wikipedia, but more significantly than that it is a part of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's vast, arguably evil, media empire. In that respect it really needs to be covered since the goings on at NewsCorp are the subject of a considerable amount of analysis in the broader sense across a multiplicity of disciplines. The fact that authors are beginning to emerge from the authonomy slushpile is another indication why we should have an article on this.

This form of online slushpiling is moreover likely to be a growth area, and while there isn't a vast amount of authoritative secondary source coverage out there of any note, this will undoubtedly change. The blogosphere has it though, and the journalists of the yellow press will show up sooner or later; the reality of course is that we are now at a tipping point in the web/media convergence where reliable secondary sources are open to question in themselves: if NewsCorp/HarperCollins really wanted reliable secondary coverage (which they undoubtedly will if the POD suspicions of some are well-founded) they could get on the phone to The Times, or any of the other hydra-headed organs of News Corp, and arrange for some to be whistled up forthwith (actually I already found some and while it would qualify as a reliable secondary source in a strict definition, its very provenance and the media in which it appears undermine it - it made The Times Top 5 Online Book sites in July!).

Wikipedia isn't paper, and policy should not impinge on pragmatic realities: Authonomy is owned by one of the richest men in the world and is an important keystone of his agenda and a watching brief needs to be kept on it.Sjc (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)