User talk:Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2017/February

Women in Math Edit-a-thon

The Association for Women in Mathematics will be hosting an edit-a-thon at their 2017 Research Symposium at UCLA, April 8-9, 2017. We are compiling a list of experienced Wikipedians who will look out for any new articles that might be created at the edit-a-thon or following it. Are you still willing to help out with our projects? We created a Google group for those who want to participate virtually https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/awm-wiki. We are also searching for an AWM Visiting Scholar. THANKS for your help! Mvitulli (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you refer any articles that need sourcing to me, Mvitulli, I'm happy to help them out. I'm a little bit easily distracted, but if you tag me on Wiki and need help with any of them during the editathon, I'm happy to help. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Megalibrary girl. Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by "tag me?" Do you mean insert Megalibrarygirl on the Talk page of the article??? Mvitulli (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2017,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red
		March 2017 Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met" Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Women You Have Never Met

Hi Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: Do you think we should include anything more on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/37 page regarding The Women You Have Never Met (criteria, jury, etc.)? I'm fine with keeping things simple (e.g. not a contest; just contribute articles) but if you think we should add any of the info that the others are including on criteria, jury, etc., I'd support that, too! Also, last year in March, we included activists and social reformers, in addition to artists and feminists. Ok if we do that again or something else? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I think we have the link to Women you have never met and that should be sufficient. No need to clutter the page with more info, IMO. Yes, yes, yes to Activists and Social Reformers. IMO, it is difficult to separate them from feminists, though there were a few who were decidedly not. SusunW (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and SusunW: I agree that we only need the link. It's an interesting title and people will most likely want to click on it to find out more. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that we've mentioned them in all our English and international invitations, they'll probably get lots of support. Maybe they'll think of mentioning WiR in their future communications. I'm still not happy about their editing rules for English but perhaps I'm too much of a purist.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bowling Green massacre

On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bowling Green massacre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway's mention of a nonexistent massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky, went viral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bowling Green massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bowling Green massacre), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2017,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow

Nice work on Woman's club movement. --MopTop (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MopTop! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sue, that is a beautiful article! Seriously, you should work it up as a GA. Totally deserving. Really, really awesome! SusunW (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SusunW, I've never done that, but I'll look into it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominating an article for Good status is simple. Here are instructions. I've waited almost no time at all, to months, for someone to review a nominated article, but once it's picked up, you'll simply be responding to any concerns reviewers may have about the article. And there's nothing wrong with an article failing a review... I had to fail a couple times before I finally learned how to 'master' the art of getting articles promoted to Good status. I'd also recommend requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors before requesting a Good article review. I've made it a habit to get a GOCE review, which is a helpful way to get a neutral editor to make sure the prose reads well before going to GAN. If you take the plunge, good luck! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never used the GoCE, I just have y'all look it over, but, that might work too. ;) I have been nailed for not having the refs in harv style. Make sure there are no reflinks in the lede. It is supposed to be a summary of all of the information cited in the body. If you need help, let me know. I'd be glad to assist. SusunW (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW and Another Believer:, thank you both. I'll have to do some clean up first, there are reflinks in the lede and I don't think everything is harv style. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Two things, okay three. On each reference you must either enter |harv=ref| or |ref={{|harvid|name of source|date}}| to tell the sfn template what source it is pointing to. The second is used either when there is no author, i.e. you want to use something like The New York Times as the source name or when you have two refs by the same person on the same day and you need to distinguish between Jones (OUP) and Jones (Penguin). If you install this handy little gadget [1] it will tell you whether your references are linked up. SusunW (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW:, I'll try the gadget. Thank you very much! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

First, wow and thank you for the awesome work on the article! As for the handy dandy gadget SusunW mentions, let me say that it is nothing short of indispensable. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep, I installed the gadget and I love it! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)