User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

2016 SF Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016			Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! --Circa73 (talk)

Wikipedia 15 session

@Peteforsyth: My 2pm presentation will include @Keilana and FloNight who'll Skype in. I want to make sure we have the techno part of this sorted out before then. Aside from their Skype addresses, do you need anything else from me? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Keilana and FloNight: our time spot has been changed: 2:05 PM to 2:35 PM. Please keep an eye on this page as there may be other time adjustments: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Wikipedia Day 2016#Schedule (tentative). --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Keilana and FloNight: Another change. It'll be Google Hangouts (not Skype). --Rosiestep (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Keilana and FloNight: Glad to know you will be joining us! I've been thinking we need to chat about the schedule, but having remote people dialing in might notch that up on the priority list. Do either of you have time constraints? Are you able to manage with, say, +/- 30 minutes timeframe? If that's a problem, I'm sure we can guarantee a certain time slot -- but let us know. -Pete (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth and FloNight: Hi everyone, I don't have any time constraints Saturday, so +/- 30 minutes is totally fine for me. Part Time Velociraptor ( [raptor noises] ) 08:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth and Keilana: I have to be somewhere at 6:30et/3:30pt. So, the panel needs to be finished by 3:15pm pt. As long as we start by 2:45pm pt, I'll be fine. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Arkansas Women's Hall of Fame

I did Tennessee because it was short and I could do it while we are waiting for the next batch of arrivals and the current batch was off shopping ;). Can you do the template for Tennessee Women's Hall of Fame? SusunW (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure! --Rosiestep (talk)

And one other question, is there a way to link to a link on de:WP for Elizabeth Rona in the table? I couldn't figure out how and was totally surprised that she had no article on English wiki. SusunW (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: There's this, de:Elizabeth Rona, which can be piped: e.g. [[:de:Elizabeth Rona|Elizabeth Rona]], or [[:de:Elizabeth Rona|(de)]]. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure it out. I tried the second one, I tried {{ill}} and I just tried the first one. I don't think you can do it. It won't let you use brackets of any kind. If you do, it doesn't create a link in the table, it just prints the brackets and the name is in black. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: Did you just want to put this, (de), next to her redlink? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant. I kept trying to put it INSIDE the bracket. Putting that next to the bracket works :) SusunW (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your mentoring and all those tasks you do to keep us moving forward. You have unlimited patience with my questions and frustrations. No matter how many times I say I just don't get something, you always inspire me to keep trying. I appreciate you and am truly looking forward to what we accomplish with WiR in 2016. SusunW (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• @SusunW: de nada, amiga. And I, too, am looking forward to what we accomplish this year. BTW, did you see my post at WiR regarding panel discussion for Wikipedia Day? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosiestep!

Happy New Year!

Rosiestep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

DYK for Maria Corsini

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the Women in Music virtual editathon

You are invited to participate in the worldwide Women in Music Virtual Edit-a-thon, 10 to 31 January 2016, hosted by Women in Red. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.

How do you like this condensed version, Rosie? Perhaps you would like to liven it up a bit with another image? Have not had much success with other sponsors but maybe we can just see how it goes on our own steam. Was thinking of sending it out to other wikiprojects in a day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: hi! Got back from vacation late last night and have much to do around the house before heading to work tomorrow morning. Thank you for creating the invite; I'll take a look at livening it up later today. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I've been thinking about it and maybe it should have more "pizzazz" but I can't put my finger on exactly what to change. I looked at imgs on Commons and couldn't pick one to add to it. Hold off posting for a bit longer, please. @SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Gerda Arendt:, thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How about this one? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the image, and thanks for the reminder. (Over all those holidays I forgot and thought it was in February). Where would red links go? Can I list the red links of singers I miss)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: If you look at the invitation, it is linked to further details including Redlinks of Women in Music.--Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but should I add a new section on singers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2016 .(UTC)

By all means. Everyone can participate in expanding the list.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Rosiestep: The Greek muse of music might do as an illustration.

  

  --Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: I like the Greek muse of music image a lot! Let's add it to the invitation, ok? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever y'all decide is fine. I will be off more than on until after the 10th because my mama is here visiting. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: here's ALT1: --Rosiestep (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

@Rosiestep: I must say I rather liked the clickable icon for WiR which would produce:

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

• As it looks the same as your latest version at Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/6/invitation, I'll assume you agree and start sending it out.--Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Lucy Goode Brooks

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Friends' Asylum for Colored Orphans

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing for the Wikipedia Signpost

Hello. I've replied to the messages at User talk:Leeds United FC fan so you are aware. Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WIGI Usability Study

		The Feminism Barnstar
		Hi Rosiestep, thanks for participating in the WIGI usability study. This barnstar is to say thank you for participating, you're input was really valuable and we're incorporating it into refining the site version. Thanks for caring and helping to raise awareness about gender biography on Wikipedia. Maximilianklein (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is really nice; thanks @Max! Look forward to continuing the collaboration. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rosie. I've sent it our to over a hundred talk pages (wikiprojects, women in red participants, music community). You can see the list at User:Ipigott/Women in Music editathon invitation. You may have some other good contacts you would like to invite. If so, please add their names to the list so we have a record for the future.--Ipigott (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: you rock; and will do! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added myself as a WiR participant and would like to be notified of future online campaigns, too! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Another Believer: that's awesome. If you're comfortable with adding yourself to the WiR members' list, that would assure you receive notifications about all our campaigns/events. P.S. So happy to hear from you, amigo! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a specific list? My name appears on the main page and I added myself to the participant list today using the new WikiProject tools. I haven't been receiving talk page notifications of upcoming campaigns, though. (And it is good to chat a bit... I look forward to seeing you again, hopefully soon!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• My mistake... you already signed up on the members' list. You should receive notifications going forward. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fantastic! Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Songs in outcomes of Women in Music

Hi Rosie. Thanks for adding so many songs to the list of early outcomes. I am a little concerned about two things:

• First, on Wikipedia we do not usually use italics for songs or album tracks. In running text, double quotes can be used but the titles themselves should stand without any special effects. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#When_not_to_use_italics).

• Second, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, there are always lots of articles on pop songs and pop singers whether or not we have a special editathon. I wonder to what extent those you have picked up from AlexBot are truly part of the editathon. I think that in most cases they would have appeared anyway. Maybe it would be a good idea to contact the article creators (or invite them to take part in the editathon) before listing their articles. I have sent invitations to a few and also included the WIR-M 2016 template on some of the talk pages. Maybe we should just wait and see how they react but I also think we should be a bit more selective in what we post on our outcomes.--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: sorry, but you've lost me, and certainly it's possible that I missed some post(s) especially as the ping feature doesn't always work on WiR, but if an article (pop singer, etc.) falls within the edit-a-thon's scope, why not include it on the Outcomes list, even if it wasn't specifically written for the edit-a-thon? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

.::*Well, we're all entitled to our own opinions but I don't think it is fair to imply people have written articles in connection with an editathon if there is absolutely no evidence that they are aware of its existence. Many of the additions you picked up from AlexBot on the evening of 5 January (your time) include pop singers and songs added by editors who have been contributing similar articles for some time. For example, Stay Together (Barbara Tucker song) was created on 3 January by Robert Moore who has added over 40 similar articles over the past two months. Until SusunW and I added to the talk page, it was only tagged for WP Songs. If you really think it is important to add all articles to do with women in music during the editathon (or the month of January), then there should perhaps be an indication of their origin (e.g. from AlexNewBot Music) on the present list (or they should be put on a separate list). I don't think we should be taking credit for articles which would have been created anyway.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: Some editors sign up on the event page and create articles; some sign up and don't create articles; some don't sign up but do create articles. Some editors won't create any articles during the edit-a-thon, but will create Wikidata entries for articles listed on the event page, or they add categories to those articles, or project banners, etc. I don't think origin matters; I think advertising every article possible is what counts. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Convincing arguments, Rosie, so I'll go along with you. The approach will certainly provide a huge number of articles on women in music and, as you say, will promote our cause. In any case, I see SusunW has been adding our banners to all the new articles listed. Sorry to have wasted your time on this but I will remove the italics from songs (but not albums) as others might start using them for songs too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• You bring up interesting things to think about, @Ian so it's all good. When someone is writing her dissertation 50 years from now on WiR, she'll see that this point was discussed, too. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you are thinking of your grand-daughter again. She's going to have quite a busy time writing that PhD dissertation!--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

She'll be 55 in 50 years so it'll likely be someone else. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Then she'll be 25 in 2046. That might be a good time to get started. In my experience, developments of this kind have a shorter shelf life than you might think. If you go back to the main field I was involved in 30 years ago (machine translation), there is no longer much interest in our contributions although they seemed extremely important at the time. If you go back 50 years, all you can find are short accounts of the beginnings of the so-called Georgetown System which was an early attempt at Russian-English translation for the U.S. Air Force.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(25 in 2036.) I do think a lot about what will happen with Wikipedia in the decades to come, and how the content gender gap will fare. Your example (machine translation) is interesting... extremely important at one time and later, not so much. I imagine there will always be a need for an encyclopedia, but whether Wikipedia will me able to morph in the way that future readers/editors will want it to, well, that is not predictable in 2016. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice work!

		The Biography Barnstar
		Just wanted to give you this barnstar for your work on the article Charlotte W. Hawes. The article is very well laid out and your references and bibliography are something else! Maestroso simplo (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Maestroso simplo: thank you very much for this barnstar and for your kind words. It means a lot to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation list for Women in Red editathons

Hi Rosie. More and more messages these days! I've made a start on the invitation list you suggested. For now, I've only included those who have either been involved in more than one editathon or who have expressed fairly wide interests as project members. I thought we could also develop additional lists for various spheres of interest as well as a list of other pertinent wikiprojects. Anyway, the 49 names here should help us with the next round on Black Women. You might like to move it onto the WiR site. You may well have more names to add yourself. We could then include an announcement on the main page inviting people to add or delete their names or give explanations of their preferences on the list's talk page. In any case, the list is better in your hands as I am not authorized to use WP:MMS.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed Dr. Blofeld from the list as he seems to prefer using the events calendar but I've also added the wikiprojects I usually include. I've looked through several other lists on Category:MassMessage delivery lists (which use a variety of formats) and see that in some cases wikiprojects (and/or their members) have been included. (See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_X/Newsletter.) I suggest we move (or copy) the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/WikiProject Women in Red/Notifications where it will be more accessible for those who wish to add or remove their names. It could also be included in the nav box, perhaps as "Main mailing list". Please let me have your reactions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott Agree with all of this. I think move rather than list to that Notifications page = the way to go. I'm swamped with work today and tomorrow, but by tomorrow night, I should have time to concentrate on this and whatever else. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't really understand where you want to put it but it's entirely up to you. Take your time, there's no rush.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Back

Thanks for the warm welcome back. It was much appreciated. :)

Worked a little on Francis Thomas Hurley, who just died. I didn't add the "recent death" template, as I don't expect a flurry of edits. Almost 170 people in the "Category:2016 deaths" already, including to my dismay David Bowie. :( Over 6,700 in last years related category. Just a sad part of... life, so to speak.

Again, thanks for the warm welcome.Juneau Mike (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

New article

New article, if you want to take a peak: Hurff Ackerman Saunders Federal Building and Robert Boochever US Courthouse. I'll be working some more on it over the next few days. Enjoy! Juneau Mike (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Eleanor Sophia Smith

I am sure you have noticed, I found a ton of info on her. Dr. B also sent some sourcing and it looks like we might be able to get her to good article. Please feel free to add/copyedit/change anything I have added. I haven't finished going through either the Mathews or Elrod sources, but will try to get back to it tomorrow. Didn't know if you were thinking DYK or not, but if so, can we wait a few days to try to get her to GA first? SusunW (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: Yup. I am aware of the extra sourcing which Dr. B found, and etc. Sure; it makes sense to go for GA and then DYK. I am SWAMPED with some Wikipedia Day things so unclear how much time I'll have to work on this between now and Saturday night when I get back home. But by Sunday, I can go back to Eleanor. FYI, I found her on Wikidata this morning, but only as a human, not as a woman. Argh! I added her VIAF and that she was a woman. Maybe some statistics somewhere will not count her as a woman's bio. Who knows. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Lovely work Susun. Looks great! Perhaps a page stalker would be willing to help?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I have done about all that I can do with it. Added a couple of photos, found her obituary so secured a death date. Finished going through the books. The lede is always my nemesis, but I fleshed it out. Did not put Hodes/Goodman/Petrillo in the lede, but that seemed like name dropping. I am sure that it could benefit from a copy edit, if anyone wants to undertake that. Can probably nominate it once I get the go-ahead from you on Monday. SusunW (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is lovely, SusunW. I'm busy till Sunday, but I'll give it my attention then. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie. No worries. I'm off into the deserts of Africa ;) studying music and politics. SusunW (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I am having the toughest time with Eleanor. No sooner did I start c/e her article, than I noticed that Wikipedia had no article for First Presbyterian Church of Chicago. Feeling a sense of responsibility to get it created, I did so, although, mind you, it needs more work. Returning back to Eleanor, I see that Hershey Music School is a redlink. And, after googling it, oh, the horror, I find there's no article about the school's founder, Sara Hershey-Eddy. I'm compelled to handle these redlinks immediately -- at least the one on Sara -- as, to quote a friend, "If it's not on Wikipedia, it doesn't exist." And then back again to Eleanor. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Two peas in a pod. I am hankering to work on Mary Rozet Smith. Think Malouma is coming along really well too, though frustrated about the lack of photos. SusunW (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Those two look great. You are much faster than me, but I'm starting on Smith. SusunW (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: yay! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Women who were the partners of other women and made it possible for them to be successful were just as hidden as traditional wives. *sigh* Thank goodness for Hathitrust. I think I have pulled enough of her philanthropy to show she is independently notable. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: so true, so unfair. *sigh* --Rosiestep (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think she is ready. Can I go ahead with the nomination? SusunW (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: yes, and please, and thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, done :) SusunW (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit hashtags to measure the impact of editathons

Hi Rosie, I very much enjoyed your talk today. I wanted to share with you a proposal I think you might be interested in, aiming to facilitate the measurement of impact of initiatives like WikiProject Women. We'd love to hear your thoughts (cc Slaporte (talk · contribs). --DarTar (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @DarTar:. thank you; I am so glad you did. Members of WP:Women in Red are really working on some amazing things!!! Also, thanks for seeking my input on phab:T123529. I like the proposal, and I added a comment about it at Phabricator. As I mentioned there, we used hashtags at an SF editathon in March 2015, and I thought it was fun to hear the ping when someone saved an edit if there was a hashtag in the Edit Summary. I could certainly see benefits with using it for WP:Women in Red focus campaigns. (cc Slaporte (talk · contribs) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another page

Although I'm just getting started, I'm happy with this new article so far: 2016 U.S. Marine helicopter collision. I believe the loss of two large, military helicopters and apparently 12 US Marines is certainly notable. I like it when you review new articles I write. :) I think I'll wait to see what other editors contribute before I expand on it. Thanks for any feedback! Juneau Mike (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: that is such a sad event, and I just don't understand why it happened. Tragic. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an unexplained and deeply sad tragedy. And I just don't see how they survived in the water, in rough seas for three days. While the death toll is lower (thankfully) it is comparable to North Carolina's Green Ramp disaster in 1994, another peace time, military mid-air collision resulting in heavy loss of life. I hope the lasting impact of this is better training for helicopter pilots to focus on the proximity of other aircraft they are flying in formation with. Assuming of course a mechanical failure didn't cause the collision. We haven't heard the whole story yet...Juneau Mike (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Rosie,

I wanted to thank you for all your work in organizing the San Francisco birthday party today. It was actually far more than a party. It was a highly informative and inspiring event. Plus, it is always nice to see you. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thank you so much. It was fun, and it's always nice to see old friends. I expect to back in SF in March for an IWD edit-a-thon; hope we can catch up then as yesterday was so busy. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Churches etc

Hi, In case you go on another spree of creating religious building articles, please don't leave the original titles untranslated. It should be Sant Pau, Fontclara or "Church of Sant Pau, Fontclara", but not "Sant Pau de Fontclara". Now people are going round moving other Spanish churches, claiming these as precedent. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: ok; thanks. If you would like me to rename any of them, just let me know. And sorry for the hassle factor. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - At the moment I'm inclined to let those sleeping dogs lie, plus some of the more famous Catalan ones do seem to be called this way in many English sources. But I'll let know if I change my mind. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

polishing
... you were recipient no. 1 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So appropriate that Rosie would be the first :) You two make me smile. Am thankful for both of your mentoring and help. Encouragement is rare on this beast called Wikipedia and you both do that in spades. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: When I think of all the barnstars and shiny things I've received over the years, the Precious prize makes me feel the most humbled... it is such an honor. And to be reminded of it on each anniversary, well, it makes me feel wonderful! Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wait until I name a prize after you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

Hello,

CIS-A2K is going to organize an edit-a-thon between 25 and 31 January this year. The aim of this edit-a-thon is creating and improving Geographical Indications in India related articles.

We welcome all of you to join this edit-a-thon.
Please see the event and add your name as a participant: meta:CIS-A2K/Events/Geographical_Indications_in_India_Edit-a-thon

Feel free to ask if you have question(s).
Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Malouma edits

Hi Rosie. Please drop me a line when you have finished editing. Just lost another big chuck. Don't worry, it'll be easy to restore.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Good morning to you too! Already late afternoon here. It won't take me long to finish but I was trying to sort out all the "she's" and sentence beginnings in the article. Maybe I'll just handle them one at a time - it's safer.-- Ipigott (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to stop now - no time left. Bonne continuation.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to make the improvements, but Dr. Blofeld's and Megalibrarygirl are working on it, too, so I'll wait to see what's left after they're done. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl said the same thing about you and thought you were working on it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

An award for you

	The Architecture Barnstar
	For your excellent work on missing architecture of late. Great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Dr. B; I really appreciate that! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

De nada. I will try to add something to the hotel you started the other day soon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Alaska earthquake

I thought you might want to see this new page. Early stages yet: 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake Enjoy. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool article. Stay safe, @Mike. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Staying in touch

Hi Rosie, we talked about a few different collaboration opportunities at the San Francisco event last weekend. I would love to follow up with some introductions to archivists, particularly those in Las Vegas and in Reno. Email me at proffitm@oclc.org! Merrilee (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft invitation for Black Women's History

Hi Rosie. I know you're extremely busy with all kinds of things but I really think we need to promote this one now. I've prepared a draft invitation without any mention of the AfroCrowd as they don't seem to be doing anything this year. If you can tidy it up, you could send it out this evening to the basic list using the automatic tools. If you don't have time, just let me know and I can send it out manually. I can then also send it to the list of other potential participants who have shown particular interest in the biographies and history of black women. Enjoy your day.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: thanks for creating it and for nudging me. I've modified the invite a bit. I also created a draft thank you #7; I think going forward, the thank you should contain a "Barnstar", which might increase participation as people like to collect them. I also created Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/List, copied from your list, which I think is in the right format for MassMailing, and Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/Opt-out. @Pharos: I've never used the MassMessage system but I think you have. If so, can you help me get these invites sent out or let me know who can assist? I'll be available via Goggle Hangout tomorrow after work; hopefully you have some time? --Rosiestep (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. (I should not have included Dr. Blofeld on the main list and have now removed his name.) The opt out list is a good idea. If Pharos does not respond within the next few hours, I'll send the invitations out manually to all those on the main list, starting with the WikiProjects. In any case, I'll send them asap to all those on my second list as most of them are probably not aware of our activities. I don't think we can afford waste much more time. Some editors seem to prepare their work several days in advance.

If you want to send out thank you notes with a barnstar, that's entirely up to you, but I would prefer to keep barnstars for exceptionally good work -- otherwise they lose their value. There are probably less than ten participants each time who really deserve them. I have been sending out the thank you notes to all the participants I have been able to identify, including those who have just slightly improved existing articles or who have created one-line stubs. But if you wish, when I compile the lists of participants in each editathon, I could highlight those who have been particularly active or who deserve special praise (e.g. newbies or new participants who have created good articles). It will soon be time to send out thank you notes to those who have participated in Women in Music. Perhaps you would like to work on that one too? I'll prepare the list of participants.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Have just sent out to all those on the additional list. Pharos does not seem to have been active for a couple of days -- so I'll start on the main list now.--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So they've all gone out now. Maybe we can find out how to handle them automatically for next time?--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: - I am so glad you are on top of this. Yes, for March, I'll make sure someone has given me a tutorial for sending them out. If you are able to somehow highlight the particularly active or who deserve special praise, that would be good, as I'd like to give out barnstars to them for the music event and going forward. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Thanks to AlexNewBot, it's usually quite easy to see who has been creating several new articles in each round.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History

Invitation
	Black Women's History online edit-a-thon 1 to 15 February 2016 Hosted by Women in Red Sponsored by AfroCrowd Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in psychology content gap list

Hi, Rosie! Notifying you that one of our contacts created a list of women psychologists, including details of their notability. We already have one psychology course using this list to create biographies this term, and we'll hopefully find a few more. Let me know if you think I should link to it at Women in Red or another space (or feel free to post yourself!). Hopefully this can help inform others, especially new users and students. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jami (Wiki Ed): thank you very much for the list! I created a WiR page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in psychology, and put the redlinked articles there. Also if any of the student articles end up at AfD, just let me know and the WiR team will try to rescue the article.

@Megalibrarygirl: as you are our resident redlist wizard (I mean coordinator), I wanted you to be aware of it as it is not formatted yet in WiR's traditional country header style. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Howdy! I'll mess around with that list soon, Rosiestep. If I can find references, I'll add 'em too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you, and no rush, and I'll work on it, too, when I get a minute to breathe. :) Here's the edit-a-thon line up from Ryan at WikiEdu re: Year of Science; this came about after a discussion I had with him and Keilana. I'm not sure yet where the meetup page would be hosted -- he asked me for a preference -- YoS, or Women Scientists, or Women in Red. I'm thinking maybe WiR could have our own meetup page -- just one -- for YoS to cover all of 2016. Editors could work on these themes or any other women's science bios, and keep adding to the Outcomes list (maybe headers for each month?). In the meantime, WiR would also continue with our Idea Cafe schedule. I'm hopeful that we could get others (WikiEdu?) involved with invitation distribution, redlist curation (like the psychology one), and so on. Thoughts? (cc: @SusunW and Ipigott:) --Rosiestep (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apr, May, June - Behavioral science
• July, Aug, Sep - Social science
• Oct, Nov, Dec - Health and medicine

• While I agree that the Year of Science is an important opportunity for better coverage of women, I am afraid that too much emphasis on it will upset participation in all our other editathons. I for one am already having difficultly in following up on everything that's going on at the moment and am finding that backup work (new categories, lists, contribution of redlinks by country) is beginning to suffer. As I suggested earlier, I think it would be great if Keilana could act as principal coordinator for this under Women scientists. We could then simply follow up with announcements of support (possibly at the top of our main page), providing a link to our list of redlinks for Women in Science. (We could of course help Keilana to set up the announcement and we could also report on the outcomes. I have noticed a considerable number of the recent new biographies and DYKs are on women scientists anyway.) We could also include more specific mention of our support at [:https://wikiedu.org/yearofscience/] and related sites. Perhaps there could also be a notice or an article in Signpost. When we have arranged all this, we could then maintain a page on WiR with a link from our navbox. But I don't think we should host a "meetup" so soon after our own editathon on Women in Science.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, you raise a good point about the importance of getting the finishing touches on articles. One of the important aspects of the Year in Science initiative is recruiting topic experts and others who will become involved with Wikipedia on a short term or long term basis. It will help if some of the newbies take an interest in helping to finish up the articles to take some of the workload off of the old hands.

• There are people, institutions, and organizations who are keen to assist Wikipedia to improve the coverage of women, and to improve the coverage of science related topics. Because it is not sustainable for the current editors to do all of the work, we need to explicitly state the need for the follow up work and recruit more people to help.

• There has been significant coverage of the gender gap (content and editors) and an increase in interest. We need to take advantage of the media coverage (mainstream and social media) and continue expanding the number of themed campaigns, edit-a-thons, Wikipedia clubs, classrooms assignments, and Visiting Scholars, Wikipedians in Residence who are focused on the gender gap (at least part of the time.)

• Women in Red is well positioned to be a central hub for the work that is done by many of these new initiative who want to include decreasing the gender gap as part of their measures of success. So, I support WiR hosting or co-hosting a series of Women Scientist edit-a-thons over the next year in order to maximize the work that is happening in other these other initiatives.

• Ipigott, @Megalibrarygirl: thank you for all the work that you do for WiR. There is still a tremendous amount of work to do, but WiR is making a difference. Everyone one involved should be proud. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Cross Nurses

So, I've been wanting to work on this one since last summer when I did Cleopatra White. I don't know if you can find some of those magic photos or public domain works, but I'm also not sure where to go with it. I think there probaby isn't enough to do separate articles for each country, or at least I'm not finding sourcing. Should I lump it all together or do brief sections on the ones I can find? There is a book on Belize and their organization is still active. There apparently are still a few active chapters in the US. May be some in Canada that have sourcing, but I don't find much for the rest of the Caribbean nor Central America. Here's my start but feel free to add, subtract, change it if you want. If you don't have time, that's okay too, but I know it's the kind of article that appeals to us both. User:SusunW/Black Cross Nurses SusunW (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I found a lot of references about this organization. I'll work on it by the weekend if not sooner. I love this sort of article (women's orgs appeal to me!). --Rosiestep (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely had no doubt and figured you'd have more sources that me. I discovered it when I wrote about White and have a good bit about the Belize branch. Don't know much yet about the others, but am thrilled to know you found sources. Woo Hoo! SusunW (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• (Page lurker), I'm going to send you some sources via email I found. I hope they help. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sue! Feel free Megalibrarygirl to jump in anytime and work on it. Rosie and I love these "organization" ones because they always bring up big lists of women who were leaders and surprisingly not well-known and were the "stew pot" so to speak of ideas to better the lives of women. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Adele Lewing

I'll let you decide if this goes in or out. Am sure it is her, [1] am not sure it is relevant. SusunW (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Her husband... what a jerk. The article is interesting, @SusunW: and I agree, it's her, but it's tabloid fodder for sure. Maybe an EL as it is a part of her life story, even if pathetic? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That was me, I was torn. But since the case was thrown out, she technically was still married to him. I noted though they did not live with each other as she was living with her daughter in 1940. I was so surprised to find the marriage announcement in New Zealand. Why it was there, I'll never know, but it took me on a track to finding more of her story. Radio star, who knew? SusunW (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hilda Heine

I recognized the name, I started an article on a president! Without you, me and Char it would probably have still been missing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL!!! That's a super innovative barnstar, thanks!! Funny thing is, I remember thinking when we wrote it that she seemed quite important, and the name really struck home for some reason! Little did we know she'd soon be president!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

100 Stone Project

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the notability of this art project: http://www.100stoneproject.com/what-we-do/ If notable, what would be the best way to proceed with an article on Wikipedia? Here are some media articles about it: http://www.ktva.com/volunteers-restore-statues-for-100-stone-project-325/ and http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/100-stones-project-interview/36796024 I'd appreciate your thoughts, thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: I think it's totally notable. But let's not create the article until March, during Women's History Month's Art+Feminism drive, which will be humongous this year. This will be a perfect edition. Let's do it! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, remind me at that time, thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Michaelh2001. I created 100Stone as a stub. I'm not convinced that's the right name. If you have access to better refs, could you please incorporate them? P.S. Hope all is well. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

AWB for WiR

It might be useful for the first and/or last of the tasks listed; I wouldn't count on it for the other three. (Perhaps for adding the authority control tag, but I'm still trying to figure out a good way of doing that with AWB). I can't promise I'll be able to get to it in the next couple of days, though. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: If you feel like doing any of it during the next week, that would be fine. But no worries if you're busy with other things. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New user blocked

Hi Rosie. I have just seen on this talk page that the user AllTimeMusic has been blocked because of the user name. The user's first article Lyn Stanley which was probably written for our music editathon was also threatened with deletion. Perhaps you could try to sort this out. We can't afford to lose good new people like this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Women in Music participation list

Hi Rosie. As promised, here is a draft participation list of those I have been able to identify as participants in the editathon. You will see I have marked those who have been particularly active. For your information, I noticed that many of those who contributed articles on music were also active in their coverage of women in other areas. As usual, many of those who were invited, including some of those who added their names as participants, do not appear to have contributed new articles. Please update the list with the names of those I may have missed.--Ipigott (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott The list is well-compiled; I won't be making any changes. Thank you for making time to distribute the thank yous. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar for your contributions

Barnstar for your active paricipation in the Women in Music edit-a-thon
	January 2016 More than 250 articles were created Hosted by Women in Red (... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Henrik

Hello! Could you review my edits on the: User:Henrik page? (He?) hasn't been active since August, 2014. I added the "missing Wikipedian" category, and a short, bold message at the top of his user page regarding his absence. (Check my edit summary for both) I've never done this before to a user page, so I would appreciate a little admin review. Thanks!Juneau Mike (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: I think it looks fine. I think I remember this editor, but I don't know where he went off to, or why. Sad to know a good community member has vanished. Hope you are doing well. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Malouma

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your teamwork on a woman singing for women's rights!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, @Gerda Arendt; that means a lot to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Smalls Paradise

Hullo. Can you expand the lede and add an infobox like in Stork Club? I'll give it a read then and nom for GA. Black women performed in the club, so no reason why it can't be part of the current month ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: sure... will work on it later today. Looks like the infobox is there already? There are 20 Harv Errors so I'll deal with those, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I added an infobox, believe it or not ;-) Just expand the lede and improve if you can and I'll nom for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: The Jet refs need to be cleaned up (they're all Harv Errors) but I'm too tired to figure out how to do that right now. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In the news

For info. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Publication manager

Hello, Rosiestep. I contacted you previously about my interest in the publication manager position for The Signpost, but the discussion halted. This is to let you know again that I am interest in that position.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I might be too, provided it's more a wikignoming job and not a time sink. Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@3family6 and Montanabw: Thanks for your interest! I replied to each of you via email. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Primer Encuentro de Mujeres Negras de América Latina y El Caribe [2] Seems right up your alley. I am working on User:SusunW/Ochy Curiel who helped organize it. SusunW ([[User talk:Susu SusunW (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)|talk]]) 22:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @SusunW:. All is well. Just needed a bit of a breather. I like that article on Ochy a lot! And thanks for pointing me to that conference as it does interest me! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything. She seems like a huge figure in the Afro-Caribbean/Latina movement, so I want to do her justice. Glad all is well.

@SusunW: Will do. We're celebrating Mardi Gras with friends today (parade in beautiful Nevada City, California) and then Valentine's dinner, of course. But I'm off work tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Carmen Souza

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Eleanor Sophia Smith

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Winning the Wiki Loves Women #15Challenge!!

Congratulations!! Your amazing article Malouma written by Team Women in Red has won the Wiki Loves Women #15Challenge writing contest.

I have placed a barnstar userbox on your userpage. But here is the larger barnstar if you wish to make a splash!! Thank you so much for rising to the challenge with such an excellent article!! Isla Haddow (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. Your team was also voted for Best Team Work!

Congratulations all, I guess my criticism though didn't count for team work ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Islahaddow:. The team and I are honored to receive this award. We enjoyed working on #15Challenge; let's do something else together! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I think the only reason you were not mentioned was that you did not appear in the team submitted to the competition. But I for one would like to thank you for contributing to the improvement of this and other GA articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's OK, it was intended to be sarcastic though as I didn't expect credit!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar for Black Women's History

I noticed you were not too happy with the one we had suggested. How about this?

--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott... No not exactly... I do like the one that Dr. B created, however, I thought contrasting colors between foreground and background (statues; barnstar) would make each more visible. That said, I LOVE this one as the foreground and background images are different colors (black; brown). Also, with this one, it's clear as a bell that it has something to do with Africa. Excellent find. Let's go with it unless there are objections by others? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, we'll use that one. I'll start compiling the participants list today although I have a feeling we will have further contributions up to the end of the month.

Ipigott - That would be great! I'd be glad to distribute some/all of the thank you notes. If you enjoy doing it, I don't want to step on your toes. If you'd like me to handle, I'm fine with that. I'll follow your lead on this. I think I understand how to run MassMessaging and will try it out on the thankyous once you've compiled the contributors list(s). Will there be 2 lists again, one for thankyou and another for barnstar?

You'll see the contributors' list later today. I don't think it is a good candidate for MassMessaging as there are many newcomers and adding the code would take as long or longer than just sending out the thank-yous. I think it would be much better to use the main participant list as a basis for sending out the invitations to our WHM editathon. I can send out the thank-yous.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Women's History Month, I very much like your ALT 3 format but on my screen I can hardly read the line "Women's History Month online edit-a-thon" as it is blue on blue. I think it would be better to have it white like the rest of the text. And perhaps you could also link the last line to Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism. I think we should start sending it out at the beginning of next week. Have you made any progress on how to activate the automated invitation list?

I like ALT3, too, except I can't change the colors. White letters are for unlinked words; dark blue letters are for wikilinks. This is why I unlinked everything but the WiR meetup page. In the end, it's probably not a good option. There are other box options here Template:Divbox. I tried out a few of them and settled on what you see here Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8/invitation & thank you templates, but maybe I missed something that would be more suitable. I'd appreciate your feedback. I haven't gotten any further with the MassMesage feature.

I was also wondering if we should not go along with the Art+Feminism emphasis on encouraging the participation of more women editors. And I think it would be useful if the involvement of Women in Red was brought out a bit more on their pages. In particular, links to our red links on artists, activists and feminists should be included on their Tasks page but I think we should also be mentioned more obviously on their main page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I discussed with the A+F organizers how to give WiR more prominence, and they suggested that after each in-person event, WiR could post an invitation on participants' talkpages so that they know about WiR's online event running the rest of the month. I think that's fair enough so agreed with this approach as first and foremost, A+F is about women gathering together to create/improve articles about artists. As for articles on activists and feminists, it's actually my take on their name. I said something like, "can we write about artists and feminists?", and the A+F folks were agreeable. And then with Susun, we expanded it to include activists. Long story short, art is their article focus; feminism is their attendance focus. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott - Adding a ping for you here as I've made strike-outs above and I'm unsure how that affects the ping system. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You can tweak ALT3 so it looks like this:

ALT3 bis

You are invited url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Women_in_Red/8
	→ Women's History Month online edit-a-thon [3] ← 1 to 31 March 2016 Hosted by Women in Red In collaboration with Art+Feminism

(To subscribe/unsubscribe: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/List.)

But you can also change the colours, for example:

ALT4

You are invited
	→ Women's History Month online edit-a-thon ← 1 to 31 March 2016 Hosted by Women in Red In collaboration with Art+Feminism

(To subscribe/unsubscribe: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/List.)

I've also linked to Art+Feminism. I think it looks rather nice and will stand out on people's pages.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott I agree. Let's go with ALT4. I think to send out the initial batch this weekend, or would you suggest waiting a bit? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this weekend would be fine for the basic list, if you could handle that. I will also put together a list of additional Wikiprojects and individuals and will send out the invitations for them at the beginning of next week.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your improved version of ALT4. It looks great.--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Black Cross Nurses

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributors to Black Women's History

Hi Rosie. As promised, here is the list of the major contributors to Black Women's History. As usual, I may have missed a few, particularly those who have just worked on existing articles. Please add any missing names. I'll send out the thank-yous and barnstars.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott List looks good. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for your contributions

Thank you for participating in the Black Women's History edit-a-thon
	February 2016 More than 170 articles were created Hosted by Women in Red (... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Women writers editathon

I've created a first draft of Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/10 as time is marching on and we will soon need to use it. Please make any necessary adjustments. I've included the whole of the month of April for the time being.--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott When I was adding more talk page banners, category banners and stub links, I noticed that the editathon banner template for both 9 & 10 is {{WIR-W 2016}} I assume we want different ones? I would fix it but have no idea how. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you changed AF SusunW (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you caught me while I was still editing. But it's always good to see that someone is keeping a check on things.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month

In addition to the basic invitations list, I've compiled a list of other WikiProjects and individuals to be invited. Please add any others I may have missed. I'll send them out immediately after you've handled the main list -- but on Monday at the latest.--Ipigott (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I did it! I used the MassMessage feature and our invitations to the main list were delivered in a nanosecond. I'd be glad to handle this list, User:Ipigott/Women's History Month editathon invitations, for you using your name as the sender instead of mine. (Note, the "sender" is ‎MediaWiki message delivery not the editor who places the MassMessage order). --Rosiestep (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Congratulations! It seems to work very well - and I see we have one "opt in". A few also added their names to Art+Feminism. Don't worry about the second list. I can now send them out very quickly while you're enjoying a good night's sleep.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Just a question - what happens in this, what would you need me to do? 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 22:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Page stalker here...Antiqueight There are tons of things that need to be done and if you are interested, just jump in wherever. Write articles, check articles that others have written and be sure that talk page banners have at least one project which falls under the Women umbrella, submit and review DYK articles (doesn't matter if you wrote the article-for WHM we want women to be prominently featured on the front page), add names to the red lists with a couple of sources, find photos, are just a few of the ways you can be involved. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW. That's good to know - could you do me a favour and take a look at the few pages I created recently - I'm not going to get the to featured status as I don't have anything but internet sources and no other information on the women but if you could tell me what extra to do to make sure it gets seen and includes all the right tags and all that...Anna Millikin · Mrs F. C. Patrick · Mildred Darby · Anne Fuller · Eliza Dorothea Cobbe, Lady Tuite · Angela Bourke · Margaret Tynan. I have added a number of names to the list of irish writers missing too and I'm working my way through it. I came across it while researching one of the names on the list.

Sorry for conversing on your page Rosiestep. Your input welcome too.... 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 15:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Antiqueight Glad to have you here. Did we get all your questions answered? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. Yes, I think so. Certainly pointed me in all the right directions and let me know who to ask for help. :-) 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 16:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Major problem with WiR members lists

Hi Rosie. Sorry to bother you again but just in case you didn't get my ping from the WiR talk page, something has gone seriously wrong with the list of WiR members. If you go into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red and press "View Full List" under "Meet our members!", you only get the first four names with a lot of strange details below. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members. This needs to be corrected urgently as it looks as if new members are trying to register. And it is impossible to see who has registered (or tried to register). I've alerted Harej but he is usually very slow to respond. Perhaps you can alert him more directly.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I described what I found (about the bot moving names) on the project talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I responded on the WiR talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Paulette Poujol-Oriol

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Great!

Great! You are the primary co-ordinator of Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8? At WT:INB (see discussion here) there is a proposal to start an edit-a-thon. Of course March is the women's month. So, IMO, it should be aligned accordingly.
Could we take 7 days time for Indian subcontinent women? I was talking to Sarah, could you also lead this sub-edit-a-thon as well with Sarah? Of course the project will support and promote the initiatives. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Titodutta and thanks for reaching out to me. I'm going to copy this conversation over the the Women in Red talkpage for member feedback as we make these decisions collaboratively. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK, please share the link where you have posted. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Marianne Means

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reaction?

I left a message at the Gender gap task force page, but thought I should contact you directly.

I've collected some data and done some simple analysis on it at User:Smallbones/1000 random results. In particular the section at the bottom on "Biography, Women and Men" might be of interest. Very briefly, women's bios, according to several measures, are slightly lower in quality than men's bios one month after being started, and the difference increases over five years. IMHO, this likely results from cultural bias and a lack of source information, but in any case, knowing about this likely lower quality for women's bios is important and seems to be just another obstacle to overcome.

Could you let others who are organizing related projects know about this, if you consider it to be relevant to their efforts?

There's a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, that seems to be focusing on high quality articles (to my surprise) and you can leave feedback here or at User talk:Smallbones/1000 random results

Any feedback appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones page stalker here and not at all sure I want to address this on Wale's page, as it gets ugly over there, but I will if you think it necessary. I don't think "27 matched pairs of biographies of men and women were formed and the growth, in bytes and words of text, of these articles was recorded over 5 years from their starts. The results suggest that, on average, all bios more than double in size over 5 years, but that bios of men start about 30% larger than bios of women, and that they grow at a slightly faster rate." these findings are remotely unusual. Women's sourcing is much more difficult to find. First you have historical bias from publishers who did not necessarily think women's accomplishments amounted to news. Often, if a women was a joint researcher, winner, participant in event, she was pushed into the background while the male's accomplishments were recorded. Second, you have the issue that women's names traditionally are obscured either because of custom (Mrs. John Doe, Dr. Doe, Miss Doe) or because she married (Jane Doe is now Jane Roe). Unless you have a linking document showing that Jane is now Roe, it is hard to find either fore or aft data. Compound that with WP rules which insist secondary sourcing is preferable to primary sourcing and it creates a huge documentation issue.

The problem with secondary sourcing is huge in its impact on women and minorities. There is a cadre of editors who are biased against using local and regional sources, which basically eliminates all but the most prominent of historic women who were national figures. Add to that that census record or marriage records are sometimes the only source available to document a woman's whereabouts or name changes. It isn't original research to state what the record says, but WP often labels these sources as such and many editors remove them because of the ridiculous secondary sources rule. There is a HUGE difference in a self-generated source and a primary source, but WP has no distinction between the two. Primary=bad; secondary=good is the exact opposite of what academia would require, as oft repeated secondary sources just regurgitate wrong information from each other and once something is in print, it takes on a life of its own. And finally, there is a complete misconception of how to weigh documentation. Length of a source has absolutely nothing to do with significant coverage. Every editor who writes about women has at some point encountered the dreaded "name check" statement by someone wanting to delete an article. Significant coverage is the depth of the information. If one has RS from say a woman's university, her country's government, and a respected newspaper all stating that she was the first to graduate as say an engineer in the country that is weighty. Regardless of whether it is one sentence in a document. (I actually had 6 RS and an editor challenged the claim because there was no article about the woman where she was the "only" person discussed). A 2000 page book about someone's college exploits is frivolous fluff and though lengthy is not significant. A single statement in a RS that that person was president of a country is significant. Unless and until WP really gets serious and changes the rules about documentation to understand that biographical documentation which exists for women and minorities is different, I see no changes happening in the statistics you cite. (Sorry for taking up so much of your page, Rosie) SusunW (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems to me we might want to start working on changes to the MOS! Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

SusunW Thanks for the feedback. I can only agree with most of this, e.g. "I don't think "..." these findings are remotely unusual." Now that I've done the investigation, that's starting to seem obvious. Your reasons make sense as well. That doesn't mean that the prospect of improving bios of women is any less of a daunting task. Modifying the reliable sources requirements will also be difficult, but I don't think that will be impossible. All the best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So - where do we go from here to fix it? Is it the MOS? as Montanabw says. SusunW has a good point. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would think the hang up would be at WP:RS, maybe check WP:RSN for a reaction. The arguments for and against changing WP:RS (a bit) would be the same as for and against affirmative action, so it would be a long row to hoe. There has been something previous, about allowing oral histories for Indian villages, e.g. places that have very little recorded histories - no newspapers, libraries, etc. That was voted down. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw, Smallbones, and Antiqueight: I'll be happy to support any efforts at change, but doubt that anything will happen. The vocal negative cadre IMO will more than likely quash any attempt to make changes. They like being in control and in charge from what I can see and typically resort to attacking editors if they cannot attack arguments. I refuse to play those types of games and will not participate in it. I am forever hopeful that change will happen, but realist enough to recognize that it probably won't. SusunW (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My take on Wikipedia governance is at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_202#On_governance_and_making_changes_to_Wikipedia Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Your research is interesting and important, and I'm going to need to spend some time reviewing it. I haven't looked at Jimbo's page yet -mostly I avoid it as it tends to be full of bumps and bruises- but I'll follow your link. Note, it may be the weekend before I have time for some of this. @Montanabw, SusunW, and Antiqueight: The MOS, aka "the sacred cow". I've mentioned readdressing the MOS a few times in the last year to a few people (I think Susun has, too), and generally, the response can be summed up -my words, not theirs- as something like, "it's the sacred cow... don't even bother bringing it up". This frustrates me. Parts of he MOS -Reliable Sources, Notability, and so on- need to be re-addressed. This is 2016, and we can't move forward in 2016 if we cling to policies written in 2001ish. I have an idea of how to get the ball rolling. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You point me at the conversation and I will support it. The difference between notable and famous, local and world, and how to cite it appropriately is important. The first women to achieve a degree in a country may not get a huge amount of coverage in national or international newspapers and the woman might not go on to achieve amazing things but she is notable for the impact her actions had on the world around her at the time and the coverage may be in local papers which are only in archives today and hard or impossible to access. There might only be small coverage but she could well be notable. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 15:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Smallbones, SusunW, and Rosiestep: I have been an active editor on Wikipedia for over ten years and somehow seem to have avoided all the terrible problems referred to in Smallbones' analysis. I spend most of my time on contributing content. Sometimes I do run into problems with other editors but I have found in 99% of cases, even the seemingly most aggressive editors can be helpful if they are treated with friendly respect rather than defensive statements or even attacks. As for primary vs. secondary sources, I think there is some sense in the Wikipedia approach as we do have a considerable proportion of contributors who try to draw on their own biographies or their own pet theories. Unless secondary sources reflect the significance of these, they really have no place in our articles. On the other hand, if we can find a few secondary sources in support of an article, we can then usually draw on primary sources with impunity. When writing up the biographies of women who are of historical importance, I agree there is often a dearth of easily accessible secondary sources. In such cases we are indeed threatened time and time again with article deletion but, I'm pleased to say, we usually manage to pull through. Indeed, one of the things I really enjoy about working on Women in Red is that there is a strong common spirit of collaboration. We spend our time on building content and I think we do a pretty good job with most of our articles beginning at start class or higher. May I suggest that we continue on this path and leave "governance" and other matters to those who can afford to spend time debating their points. I have followed some of these discussions over the years and, unfortunately, have not seen much progress on anything. But Women in Red is progressing fast. If there has been a problem with the quality of the biographies of women, we have been solving it. So let's just concentrate on content building and leave the Wikipedia fundamentals to those intent on reform. We can come back to this in six months or six years - I don't think there will be any noticeable difference in how people behave around here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with folks who just want to keep their heads down and write articles, and I often think I should put away my concerns in the area of governance and just write articles. My thanks to all those who can do this. At the same time, it would be nice to be able to make some modifications in our rules that prevent articles on some women, Indian villages, non-white-anglo-male articles, etc. from being written, or coming up to their potential. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to add that the analysis Smallbones has made of the biographies of men and women over the years makes interesting reading. But it is probably more important to the other WikiProjects on women as Women in Red's primary objective is to create new articles rather than to improve old ones. I also hope something will come of the efforts towards reforming the system. But I leave this to younger enthusiasts. Maybe our dynamic supporter Dr. Blofeld who has constantly striven towards quality improvement would also support the cause.--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Carrie A. Tuggle

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Doris Stevens

I think I'm about done with her. Could use another set of eyes to look it over, proofread and break into smaller sections. I am also in a dilemma over photos. I found two others 1928 and 1931, which could be added. BUT, the 1928 one, which I'd love to have is tiny. Not sure if it shows enough detail to be useful, but it is the actual photo of her presenting their findings, so important, I think. The other one is also interesting, though "busy". Your thoughts? Maybe Dr. Blofeld has ideas on how to obtain a bigger picture of the 1928 image. It is from the Pan American Union meeting and on the Inter-American Commission of Women site, so it seems to be a US government photo. SusunW (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A crown for Susun

• @SusunW: you are officially the Crown Empress of Writing Wonderfully Detailed Biographies About Women Faster Than Anyone Else I Know. And, yes, I will see what I can do. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• LOL you crack me up. I am not one for tiaras for sure and that looks like a heavy crown, but I'll wear it for a second or two. There was a small bio on her, but not very detailed and had a 2-year-old sourcing tag on it. Working earlier on the Inter-American Commission of Women, I was appalled at how small her bio was. Decided I would spend a week getting her up to par for Women's Month and asked Sue to help with sources. There was tons of stuff, clearly she was deserving of more coverage. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, very true though Rosie! Why da ya want a bigger crown though Susun, is your head really that big ;-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• LOL. I'm not proper enough for royalty and I'm sure my hair is way too big for it. It's untamable. What are your thoughts on the photos Doc? SusunW (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• @SusunW: As usual, I got distracted with another article, but will be back working on Doris tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Totally cool Rosie. I am working on the mysterious Marquesa del Ter. I finally figured out who she is. SusunW (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• @SusunW: OMG, I tried to figure that out for at least 30 minutes! Cross my heart! Now I have to look at your contribution history to see the answer. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• @SusunW: Lilly Rose Schenrich - Ok. Now I can get some sleep. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Too funny. We really do think alike. SusunW (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• @SusunW: I kept thinking, "She wasn't born Marquesa del Ter"; she was born with a "real" name... Mary, Elizabeth, something. Now why can't I find it? And in the course of looking, I came across info on the Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School‎. How'd you sort it out? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I looked for the men. this] said nothing much except that Ramón Cabrera y Richards was probably my guy given the ages and that meant that her maiden name was Schenrich because the next Marquis was Ramón Cabrera y Schenrich. Then I realized he was both the Marquis and the Count and I clicked on that link. Voila! "Ramón Cabrera y Richards (1854-1940), II conde de Morella, II marqués del Ter. Casó con Lilly Rose Schenrich." I have found a lovely obit in the London Times. I'll add it tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• How the heck did you find that Portuguese link. Confirms the other stuff I found. Amazing teamwork. Why were her archives donated to the National Library of Portugal? Oh wait, the granddaughter is a painter...art & feminism. LOL the irony of it all. They really do want to be found. SusunW (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Stevens already looks GA worthy. Perhaps find a way to split the big later life section but amazed how much you've written on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I'm shooting for Dr. Blofeld. I could've written more. She was in the newspapers almost daily for 20+ years, but one has to at some point hit the highlights and move on. Why she has not gotten more attention is baffling. She was no minor player. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I've gone back to the article and started doing some linking. Just linked the Palace Hotel and had a big smile across my face as it is just down the street from the Wikimedia Foundation. You walk right by it to get to the Montgomery Street BART Station. Here forward, when I walk by it (and I'll have to go in one day), will I remember to think of Doris meeting with the politicians? I hope so. As for the Portuguese link... I tried an alt spelling of Lilly. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie! I see that Sue was doing some work too. It's looking better :) On another note ... Yesterday we didn't even know her name ... Marquesa del Ter SusunW (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we ready to nominate her? I'd love the later pictures, but Sue's research indicates the 1931 one has copyright restrictions and she's working on the 1928 one. She found a better copy and I figure we can always add it later. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I vote yes! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay I'll do it in the morning. Exhausted tonight. SusunW (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Devanahalli Pomello

Can you c/e this to sort out the issue, pl.Template:Did you know nominations/Devanahalli Pomello.--Nvvchar. 15:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Nvvchar. I started the c/e but this really is out of my league. Botany is not my strength. That said, I did some research on Devanahalli Pomello (I'll refer to it as DP going forward) and found this, which states that DP is "botanically known as citrus decumana linn". Citrus decumana redirects to grapefruit. Maybe it should redirect to pomelo? I compared grapefruit's cats (Citrus, Citrus hybrids, Grapefruit, Flora of Jamaica, Flora of Barbados, Tropical agriculture) and pomelo's cats (Citrus, Flora of Nepal, Plants used in Ayurveda) with DP's cats (Horticulture and gardening, Plants, Flora of Karnataka, Geographical Indications in India, Indian handicrafts, Bangalore Rural district) to see if that would help sort out some of the confusion, and believe that DP's cats could be better aligned, but I don't feel expert enough to do so, other than to remove a couple.

I reviewed several Rutaceae articles to get a feel for content, format and so on. I would recommend rewriting the DP article with those in mind. This, though dated 1948, from Nature seemed helpful. Also this on page 25: "Pomello (Citrus decumana, Murr.) The stock Holt and Devanahalli, a local variety are usually grown in the State." Also perhaps this. There are lots of other possible refs, but first, you'd have to verify the scientific name as I'm not convinced of "citrus decumana linn" vs. "Citrus decumana, Murr." vs. something else.

If you don't have the time/inclination to do a rewrite at this time, no worries. (Perhaps Cwm would be interested?) Another possibility would be to just research and clarify the fruit's scientific name in the lede sentence, and withdraw the nom. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• You may like this Deng Yuzhi to restructure, edit, and add. Nvvchar. 14:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Nvvchar: done! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. I propose this hook for the nomination ... thatDeng Yuzhi did not perceive herself as a feminist or a revolutionary but relied instead on Christianity as a source of her identity, triggered by her religious beliefs? Pl nominate as appropriate.Nvvchar. 13:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• You may like these two articles Meira Paibi and Khasi Women of Meghalaya on the heroic women of north east India. Even I was not aware of their heroic movements. You may like to add and edit.Nvvchar. 10:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nvvchar I'm done with Meira Paibi; you may wish to nom it. I'm turning my attention now to Khasi women of Meghalaya. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Nvvchar: I changed Khasi Women of Meghalaya to Matrilineal society of Meghalaya and I'm done with my edits. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Posted here Template:Did you know nominations/Meira Paibi.Nvvchar. 04:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• And also here Template:Did you know nominations/Matrilineal society of Meghalaya.Nvvchar. 04:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• May like to suggest an alternate hook in view of comment on the above hook.Nvvchar. 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nvvchar thanks for the noms. I've offered alts for Meghalaya. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is still another review here Template:Did you know nominations/Matrilineal society of Meghalaya which I am finding hard to reply. Can you help?Nvvchar. 15:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reminder on Women writers

Hi Rosie. I have still not received any response from you on the Women Writers event. I have now included it under "Coming up" on the events section. As far as I can see, we have no sponsors but if you know of any, please add them. I've also tentatively scheduled it for the whole of April. If you think it should be shorter, please change the dates. Can you also add a Twitter hashtag in the box and provide any backup on Twitter. We should also try to firm up events for May. There seems to be a consensus for concentrating on photography and including MENA photographers. Have you any views on this? Maybe we can still include Guggenheim MENA. Can you check with Pharos whether Guggenheim is willing to set a focus on MENA photographers for May.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott and thanks for staying on top of this. As soon as the NYPL has gotten back to @Pharos, I'm sure he'll let us know if they'll be a sponsor. We're sticking with photography for May. We've been invited to participate in a second event in May, MENA, and I'm all for it. Maybe Pharos can elaborate on it on the WiR talkpage. Right now, though, I think Pharos and I are knee deep in A+F behind the scenes stuff, so pardon any delays in responding. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about MENA. I referred to it in my message. I think the discussion suggested that we should not take on a separate editathon on the basis of Guggenheim's focus on MENA artists but rather put additional emphasis on photographers from the region, preferably with some support from the Guggenheim. SusunW thought we should not upset our established schedule simply because of recent developments from the Guggenheim on artists as we have already been able to cover them in earlier editathons. I fully support her suggestion that we could try to assist by developing articles on photographers from the MENA countries rather than having one more editathon on artists. (That does not mean we should not publicize the Guggenheim editathon on our main page if it is finalized.) I think it is important for us to take into account the views of major contributors to WiR. Our events scheduling should be by consensus.

While I am here, do you need any help with your March assignment in Berlin? Thanks also for inviting several newbies to participate in Art+Feminism. I've include their names in my invitations list.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: This is my thought. Why not post more than one meetup page in a month? If only 1 or 2 or 3 people want to participate in that event, and create 2 or 4 or 6 new articles, we have gained much. First, Wikipedia has gained new articles. Second, WiR has gained new contributors. Third, Wir, may have gained new members. You mention "major contributors". Where is the downside of offering secondary options to major, minor, or new contributors?

As for MENA, the Guggenheim will focus on MENA artists. But I'm not convinced that m:Iranian Wikimedians User Group will focus only on artists or women. Each editor chooses. If I come across a Maltese or Afghan woman writer or ethnologist, I can contribute that article to a MENA event (We don't have to put a square peg in a round hole.). And, as I've learned in middle age that I am not unique, I know that others would share this view.

I remember sitting with the A+F folks in October 2015 in Washington D.C., and making a plan for WiR's collaboration as an online node for March 2016. I told Michael, Jackie, and Sian that WiR would be glad to collaborate, but how would they feel if WiR takes a broader approach -- includes feminists, activists, social reformers? They were very quick and gracious to say, "sure", "yes", "of course", although I doubt anyone had asked them that before. I want WiR to be that nimble... if someone else has an idea... go for it. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I firmly believe that in order for WiR to become a movement, we have to empower others from around the world who want to replicate our secret sauce: our brand and our scope. We have to be open to facilitating multiple events, in multiple languages at any given time. We have to encourage others to create meetup pages, send out invites, develop redlists, and so on. Amazing, that in less than a year, we've gotten to this point!!!!!!!!! Also, I think it may be time to elect some "Core Coordinators" (following the MILHIST and A+F models), in order to oversee the brand. I am responding to you here, but I'm also going to cross-post this on the WiR talkpage for greater visibility. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Meetup sponsors

Could you clarify for me what it means to be a "sponsor" of one of our events? I'd like to understand it better so that I can see if there are ways to help work on that angle at my end (LA basin).Alafarge (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Alafarge: A sponsor usually hosts an in-person event and asks for Women in Red to augment it with a virtual event during that time. If the press covers the sponsor's event, then WiR could be mentioned! Usually there's a Wikipedia liaison who connects the sponsor and WiR (commonly me). We connect via email and often phone call(s)/Skype to work out promotion, etc. Thanks for any ideas or suggestions! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. Will keep an eye out for opportunities.Alafarge (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alafarge: this also might be a good opportunity to revive the meta:Southern California Wikimedians usergroup concept and get official WMF recognition for LA basin activities.--Pharos (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red hashtag?

Hi Rosiestep, is there a hashtag specifically for WiR edits, or are the #ArtAndFeminism and #NowEditingAF hashtags the appropriate ones to use? Circa73 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Circa73. Those are fine. We (Women in Red) need to get more savvy with social media. If you know anyone who wants to coordinate that for Women in Red, e.g. a Facebook page for all the events, a Twitter feed for the articles, and so on, let me know!! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit confused about the hashtags and Facebook pages. I have very little experience of the social network facilities as I do not have time to use them. I see we had #WikiContentGenderGap in January and February and in March we have a link to Facebook. Up to now we have nothing for Wikipedia:Meetup/Women_in_Red/10. Should we be developing a policy on this? Should we also have links to Twitter and Facebook on our main page?--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott WiR doesn't have an organized social media campaign. It needs one. If you know someone who is interested in coordinating it, let's reach out to them. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Update on social media! We are here: --Rosiestep (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Facebook
• Pinterest
• Twitter

(talk page stalker). Hi, Ipigott. You can make up a Wikipedia WIR hashtag like #wir and put it in the edit summary of each WIR article edit. Then you can do a search with this new special Wikipedia hashtag search engine: http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/

Here is an example search for #artandfeminism edits – http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/artandfeminism

Here would be the search for #wir edits – http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/wir

We had a high school editathone at Nueva Upper School and here is their edit search for #nueva – http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/nueva

Since very few hashtags are in use on Wikipedia you have a lot of flexibility in choosing one. I hope this helps. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your suggestions. The tag we have been using most consistently is #wikiwomeninred. It seems to me just adding the code to an edit summary is a rather strange way of dealing with it. Is there no other way it could be added, for example as part of a template such as {{WIR-W 2016}}. Or maybe a new feature could be developed along with categories, etc., to provide specifically for the inclusion of a hashtag? @Harej: Have you or your Wikidata colleagues any views on this?--Ipigott (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott. I recently learned of the hashtag search engine at the artandfeminism edit-a-thon at California College of Arts in SF. It is hard to get into the habit of putting a hashtag in the edit summary and even #artandfeminism was a bit of a tongue twister to type into each edit. A few weeks later I went to an edit-a-thon at a women's makerspace/hackerspace called Double Union in SF, and any fem/art articles I worked on I inserted the artandfeminism hashtag into the edit summary. I used WP:AWB once to do some batch edits and I had AWB populate the edit summary with a stock one that included the A&F hashtag.

If you go to the bottom of that search page you can see the WMF employees who created this as an after-hours volunteer effort: Mahmoud Hashemi and Stephen LaPorte. LaPorte is on the legal team at WMF. It would be nice if you could press a button that would insert your hashtag of the day. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: This is all useful background for the development of a most consistent strategy on the use of hashtags in articles. I would welcome feedback/suggestions from others including Rosiestep. I think it is important to develop something that will be more widely applicable. We don't want one approach for WiR and another for other projects.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax and Ipigott: I'm going to copy some of this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Hashtag strategy for wider discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Women in ecology

Nice to meet you, Rosiestep-- I've been tweeting about #womeninecology this month, and ran into your Women in Red project. Haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, but wanted to let you know that I just updated my "red list" for women in ecology at User:Araucana/sandbox. Covers women who got PhDs prior to 1975, per Langenheim. See Women in Ecology at ESA/history for info and refs if desired. Thanks! Araucana (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, too, Araucana, and thanks for reaching out to me. I like your list, info, and refs. Would you be comfortable if Women in Red incorporates (copies) them into one of our redlists? We have a librarian, Megalibrarygirl, who is chief among us for organizing redlinks and redlists, so I've added her to this convo. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please do incorporate what you think is appropriate. I wasn't sure of best way to get it out of sandbox, so go for it. Should round out your list for this field. Thanks! Araucana (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just had a chance to look at #womeninecology and there are some really interesting tweets. Thanks again, Araucana, and stop by anytime. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it. I've been collecting the tweets at Storify:Women in Ecology. I may go back and gather older, pre-hashtag ones there as well. Storify might be a good resource as you develop your social media efforts. Araucana (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Araucana: I'm going to copy some of this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Hashtag strategy for wider discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

WiR Coordinators Meeting

@Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Victuallers: I think it would be productive if we spoke via Skype over the weekend regarding (a) one page vs. multiple, (b) social media, as I think it's key to sorting out WiR's growth strategy. I's facilitating an in-person editathon Saturday so early morning or in the evening would work; I don't have any commitments on Sunday. Please email me off-list if you'd like to discuss further. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are all welcome to discuss this by phone but in my experience written exchanges are far more effective in establishing project strategies. I think I have made my preferences clear but they are only personal preferences and I will certainly be ready to go along with whatever decisions your reach between yourselves. In any case, I cannot contribute to the social network chapter as I have insufficient experience and our discussions on one-page vs. multiple editathon strategies reveal only minor differences. Thanks anyway, Rosie, for inviting me to participate in a phone discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I'd like to join you. UK time on Sunday 9:30 to 1:30 I'm committed, else OK. I think it would be just good to chat anyway. I'll add some text to the discussion before then, bit I was doing the Nigerian editathon and Black history last month ... Come to think of it... the "Black History" was already 2 projects in one... so that was three-ish at a time. Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm in if we can do it on Saturday. Have guests coming on Sunday. Will be sorry not to have you Ian, but respect your decision. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Susun. To tell you the truth, I have never discussed Wikipedia with anyone over the phone and have only had off-wiki email exchanges with three contributors. These have mostly resulted from the need to avoid mentioning the names of other contributors on Wikipedia itself. I do however frequently receive emails from a wide range of outsiders who have read my contributions and have sought various levels of assistance. All in all, this approach has proved very effective. I am of course always ready to communicate with other Wikipedians by email if they think it necessary.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you won't be on the call, @Ian, but we'll review all ideas mentioned and develop a way forward. Between emails and talkpage posts, I'm drowning. @Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Victuallers, ping. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen...?

User:Fuzheado/ORES experiment. It sounds like it would be wonderful for use in teaching at an edit-a-thon. I'll suggest Fuzheado would the the best person to ask about any details. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Could I use that to set the first assessment of my own articles? I typically set most to stub and let someone else assess..but this took suggests at least 1 (the one I tried it on) could be a C class...Or would it be inappropriate? ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 18:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Short answer - it's not totally inappropriate, but there should be some system set up for each project to do this. IMHO the classification system has not worked very well for 2 reasons

• It's used only once (or never) for the vast majority of articles. It needs to be used more often to see how articles improve
• Very inconsistent or biased grading

That pretty much makes it useless for most of the things I do!

So I suggest that a system should be set up for each project that uses it.

• 1st a rubric or grading system set up to concretely explain what the article class means
• 2nd a consistent way to reclassify an article.

At WP:NRHP there is an easy way to ask for a reclassification. Just remove the class and in a few days it comes up on a list, linked to the project to-do list that says "these articles need a class"

ORES probably would help with the "concrete" part of the rubric. As I see ORES, it shows how many "tools" have been used to make the article. Does it have enough text, enough footnotes, sections, internal and external links, photos, etc. to come up to the average number of tools for that class. Obviously people need to get involved in the actual grading, but ORES, if used right should be a major help. Sorry this was so long! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, @Smallbones: no worries. I really like the idea but how do you use it? I tried clicking on a bunch of the links, but couldn't figure that out, e.g. where do you type in the name of the article to see how ORES evaluates it? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Open https://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/wp10/#######
• Get the permanent link, e.g. for Marie Spartali Stillman, click on the "Pemanent link link in the left hand column
  • In the url it will end with oldid=707879226
  • replace the ####### with the permanent link number, e.g. http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/wp10/707879226
• Note that "C" comes up after "prediction": This is higher than the Start rating given on the talk page, likely because the rating on the talk page hasn't been updated.
• If you really want to rate stubs in a finer way, look at the last line - here it is "Stub": 0.005914594824932044 (only about 3 digits really count)
  • if the probability of a stub is above 0.95, you've only written about 10 words - I call that a substub
  • if the probability of a stub is below 0.70, I just call it a stub
  • If the probability of a stub is below 0.40, its a good stub and might even make it to start territory

Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones I think if nothing else this will help ME to know what category one of my articles might fall into... ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 03:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Passenger pigeon/archive1

Rosiestep, would you please take a look and see if you can address any of the few remaining concerns at the bottom of the page. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try and make time for it but am swamped with other wiki things right now. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This takes time anyway. Peace be unto you. 03:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help on my article. I hadn't considered the "other sources" and wouldn't have noticed it if reading other GA articles. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Antiqueight. Appreciate it! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Meaza Ashenafi

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Caroline Anne James Skeel

Hello! Your submission of Caroline Anne James Skeel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, would you please address this issue? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this

WeHope sent me this [4] I posted it on the editathon press page, but didn't know if you'd see it there. We have press! @Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott: our lists are famous. LOL SusunW (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally awesome! And also, Happy International Women's Day! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article. I wonder if anyone noticed that on Sunday well over 100 new articles were created on Art+Feminism. I've never before seen such intense interest on one day. We must slowly be beginning to move the percentages up just a wee bit.--Ipigott (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope so Ipigott, but haven't seen numbers since December. I am totally enjoying myself. My goal is to write on a prominent suffragist every day from a different country. Keeps me focused on how very important the privilege of voting is (in the US it is much more a privilege than a right, in as much as you are only guaranteed the right to apply to vote from your state). I have found writing suffragists, and teaching ones, but so far no artists, but we shall see ... I am thinking I will sorely need to keep my focus on the importance of voting through November. o.0 SusunW (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I'm glad to hear you're enjoying yourself. A new, fully researched article a day is quite a feat. As for voting, I am pleased to hear you have the privilege. Believe it or not, as an ex-pat British citizen, I have never in my life been able to vote in a national election anywhere.--Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I know, don't understand that about the British voting system. Lots of my Belizean friends who are Brits don't get to vote either. They have a high commission which basically does ? If they need something legal done, they are told to fly to the U.K. I don't get that. The US embassy is incredibly helpful. (Not for voting, since that is a state function, even for federal elections). SusunW (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: I am beyond jazzed about the news article! We are making a difference and it is being noticed! We need to add it to the top of the WiR talkpage, and also the one Pharos mentioned! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I added the women from the article that need wiki pages to our lists and this led me down a rabbit hole of finding a ton of Australian artists/activists/etc. Very cool. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Actor or Actress?

Please? Is there a wikipedia preference for putting Actor or Actress when referencing a woman? ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 23:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @Antiqueight. Looking at the entries within [[Category:American actresses]], actress is the appropriate term. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

oh good idea. Thank you. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 09:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

University of Regina #ArtandFeminism

Hi Rosiestep, I wanted to let you know that almost all of the articles created at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina edit-a-thon were nominated (in various ways) for deletion. Some have been kept or are still under discussion. If you look at their "To create:" list, the links that are currently in red are all articles that were created and then deleted. You can tell that the editors were inexperienced: the most common issue seems to be that a lead didn't make a strong case for notability. I've worked on several of the currently afd'd articles to bring them up to a higher standard, but I'm not sure of the protocols around the ones that have already been deleted. Without being able to see what was there, I can't tell if some of them were reasonable rough drafts that needed more work. Do you have any advice on how to follow up on those? Thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Mary, any admin can email you copies of the deleted texts, and you can work on them off-wiki, on a user subpage or in Draft space. I'll be around for another few minutes if you'd like me to send you some or all of them. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Mary and Sarah first, it's unfortunate it had to go down this way. I'm sure we'd all have preferred a positive experience for Regina's editathon participants. That said, I can email the info to you if Sarah hasn't done so already. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, if someone can send me the original/largest/last version (whichever is available or makes sense) of Carole Epp, I'd like to see what I can do about her. I know she's likely to be a bit tricky since she's a ceramicist. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Mary, I've just sent it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

OF interest

OF interest to Rosie and any talk page stalkers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood. Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Mary Jane Warnes

You or/and page stalker/s may wish to further add to this. Article was identified in the ABC article as one of the missing 7. Also stubbed Ida Halley, needs expansion!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This use of Twitter is really quite something. It took just a few hours for a hook from Warnes to appear on Twitter! I think this is exactly what we need, and it gives editors more esteem to write too, if their work is given more attention and really shown to be encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Deng Yuzhi

Hello! Your submission of Deng Yuzhi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia! I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

DYK nomination of Maud Carpenter

Hello! Your submission of Maud Carpenter at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

I am looking at the women in the Cumann na mBan around the 1916 Easter Rising (due to the year etc) but many of them don't have enough information available online to write a whole article about any one women. But there might be enough to write an article about several together- but I don't know how that might work and was wondering if you had any suggestions or solutions..... ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 19:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(Page lurker here), I was thinking about your question, Antiqueight and I wonder if you couldn't just do the article with a title like Cumann na mBan in the Easter Rising. I found an article here about it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes -Megalibrarygirl something like that will have to get done. I wanted to try and create pages for the individuals where possible but a few are half forgotten - there isn't enough really to write a whole article on one but there is general information. I have found a set of sisters - I'll publish it shortly- you might tell me if it works.... ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Coolness, Antiqueight! It seems really interesting. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take a glance over Cooney Sisters and see if it works - I've never tried a group article before..not like this. It needs tweaking but it's getting late. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 00:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your article looks like a great start, Antiqueight. I didn't know anything about the Rising or Cumann na mBan until I saw your post, so I am learning something new. I'll hit a few of my databases for sources if you'd like. I have access to Oxford, Gale, EBSCO, Project Muse, JSTOR and I can walk up the street and use Lexis Nexus. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I should add, Antiqueight, let me know what topics you want me to search for... the women themselves or broader. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested initially in the women themselves. They and their contribution has been downplayed and forgotten. The woman who arranged the surrender was practically photoshopped out of existence...though she is regaining her place. So I'm working on the others. My list is here ->User:Antiqueight/Draft for those I haven't done yet - I am not going to do women who joined Cumann na mBan after 1921 however as that gets very contentious - unless I like them for some other reason! You can find the list of those I have done on my User:Antiqueight/Pages tagged as Nationalists...Megalibrarygirl It's a good time to make sure they are here on Wikipedia. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I agree we should write as many articles as possible regarding the Cumann na mBan women. They were heroic. Are there any sources --old newspapers and what not-- available from 1916 or 1917? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting on newspaper archive access to check online newspaper records-until then I'm relying on the witness statements and a handful of articles and mentions in a few books. ANY help or suggestions or things I am missing out on or should be including is welcome - I am nervous of putting too much of the witness statements information in (what they did, where they went etc) as being OR..Megalibrarygirl ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 13:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to add their redlinks to our lists. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

FB, Pinterest, Twitter, oh my!

Hi Rosie! I set up a facebook fan page here and set it up so that when we tweet, it auto-posts to FB. Also, I've "bricked" my phone so until I fix it or get another phone, I'm going to be incommunicado for a bit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl you rock! Thank you! As for the bricked phone, that's the pits; hoping it gets back to normal soon. I'm trying to get caught up with all the social media we've got going. It's a lot! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I bought a cheap phone to use for now and I'm trying to unbrick the nicer one. I sometimes think it's a good idea to experiment with my tech... but the results aren't always as expected! LOL Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

It's an honor and a joy to be featured in the same article as you. Let's keep kicking ass and writing articles! Changing the world one article at a time. <3 Keilana (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Keilana, I was so happy with that "Guardian" article... that the content gender gap work we (you, I, + others) do was spotlighted. For sure, let's "kick ass and write articles". Together, we're stronger. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Me too! We can do anything together. :) Keilana (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read the article. Thanks to you, Rosie, and Keilana, it presented the problem in a reasonable way. I hope it will encourage both men and women to pay more attention to all that women have achieved.--Ipigott (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ian:. Appreciate that. The current event has over a week to go.--Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Doris Stevens

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maud Russell

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Started Fanny Mary Katherine Bulkeley-Owen and Catherine Glyn Davies. Couldn't find much on Owen but you might find a bit more for Davies and nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Will look at these 2 more closely tomorrow. As for Fanny, I love her full name. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a mouthful LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitations for the Women writers editathon

Ipigott Is it too soon to talk about invitations for April? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just going to ask you the same thing. I haven't seen any definite news about the tie-up with the NYPL. Perhaps you could liaise with Pharos and firm up the invitation yourself, adding icons, etc., as appropriate. I see 10 new members have registered on the main page since the beginning of March. I'll check them out and if they have shown signs of activity since registration, I'll add them to the main mailing list (in addition to those who have added their names to the list themselves). I'll also try to add names to the main list in the next day or two based on participation over the past month. In addition, I'll try to compile a separate list for women writers based on active participants from wp:women writers, etc. In regard to Art+Feminism, it's going to be quite difficult to compile a list of participants for thank you notes as many of them only appear to have started one article during the in-person editathons (although I see a handful have responded to your earlier mailing inviting them to contribute to WiR). I'll see what I can do. The thank-yous do not need to go out for another couple of weeks. But today I want to add more biographies on Danish artists. Unfortunately some of the most important ones are not even in the Danish wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, I decided it was time to draft a list for invitations. It is based on active participation and not simply registration. If you have time to prepare the invitation, you could start by sending it out to the WikiProjects. I could then send it out to individuals tomorrow. It really is time to start. Hardly anyone has signed up. Writers are the backbone of all our activities.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott Thanks for your follow-up with this. These lists are so important. If you want the invites pushed out via MassMessage, with your signature, just let me know. I'll check in with Pharos. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in having my signature attached. But if you want to use MassMessage, each of the names on my list will have to be put into the correct format. For me, it's easier just to send each one to the corresponding talk page manually. Once you have established the invitation, you can send it to the main list and I'll follow up with those on my list. It's good to see we have more and more active participants.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've prepared a draft invitation here. If you agree, I think we should send it out today or tomorrow. Please make any necessary adjustments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: It's late over here in Denmark so I'm going to bed now. I see you have still not replied. Maybe my ping will help. If no response, I'll sent it out anyway tomorrow, at least to the WikiProjects. We can't afford to wait any longer.--Ipigott (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for creating it. I changed up the color and font, and will post it on project talkpages now. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Matrilineal society of Meghalaya

Materialscientist (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nvvchar, I've worked on a lot of articles which made their way to DYK, but this one will stick with me for some time to come. Thank you for introducing me to the matrilineal society of Meghalaya. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• RosiestepYou made it come through. Thanks a lot. I asked you specially for help as I thought it was a subject of your interest. I have worked in that part of my country on many Hydro-power projects and one such project is likely to be commissioned shortly.16:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Nvvchar.

@Nvvchar: I certainly appreciated this article too. I've been reading all your recent articles and am learning a lot about Indian women and Indian culture. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Deng Yuzhi

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maud Carpenter

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Meira Paibi

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WiR-10 inivitations

I've corrected the ones you sent out to the WikiProjects--Ipigott (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ipigott, gracias! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ipigott, please clarify: am I delivering invitations to Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/List (via MassMessage) or did you do so earlier today. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry once again Rosie if my messages have confused you. I only sent the invitations out to the special list for the women writers editathon. I am not authorized to use the MassMessage list. You have to be an administrator to use it -- so of course I was assuming you would handle it. But it would only take me 20 minutes or so to do it manually if it is causing you problems.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott Sent! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - so now it's all been sorted out. Thanks also for adding all the header boxes to the red links pages. You don't seem to be getting much sleep these days.--Ipigott (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Linda Falcone: user page deleted

Hi Rosie. I've just come across a very strange situation. One of our keenest new editors, user:Linda Falcone, who has contributed some excellent work on Florentine artists since the beginning of March has had her user page deleted. Her new articles include Lola Costa, Maria Angelica Razzi, Suor Prudenza Cambi, Amalia Ciardi Duprè, Mariangela Criscuolo, Rita Longa, NERINA SIMI, Teodora Danti and Liliana Cossovel. Although the last five require improvement, all the articles contain useful biographical information. If there was information on the user page which was considered to be advertising, then I would have thought the problem should have been brought to the attention of the user. To delete a user page in a person's own name seems to me to be very strange. Perhaps you could spare a few moments to look into it.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott Before I saw what was deleted, I had the same thought. But now having looked at the deleted version, I support the action. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. That sounds reasonable. Does that mean she now needs to change her user name before she can have a user page? I also see she has been working on a very effective blog on Italian artists and has been trying to promote Wikipedia there too. Maybe we can create a user page for her by simply listing the articles she has created?--Ipigott (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you should also look at this.--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott This link is awesome. I am uncomfortable creating a userpage for an editor, but it you are comfortable doing so, please go for it. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There's lots of other stuff I could post here too to show that she's really doing everything she can to support better coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. What I can do, if you think it's appropriate, is to prepare a basic user page for her in a sandbox. If I can get in touch with her through her talk page or her email address, I'll ask her for permission before I put it up - or better still invite her to put it up herself. I really think it's too bad that one of our most enthusiastic new participants is devoid of her basic status on Wikipedia. If you agree with the decision to delete her user page, then I can only suppose it was far worse that all the others I so frequently see where people boast about their own status, their books, their companies, their awards...--Ipigott (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott It was written like a dust jacket, which is why it was considered promotional. I think it's fine for you to proceed in the manner you describe, e.g. sandbox, notify via email, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/List

Any chance you could mention the Awaken the Dragon contest in the invites too, and the chance to win a book on 100 Great Welsh Women for whoever produces the most articles on Welsh women in April? By the looks of it I'm a few hours late in mentioning this though..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld Invites have been sent out. Too bad we didn't template them -and I've been thinking to do that for awhile- as we could have made changes in the template easy peasy. But. Hold on. I have some thoughts on this. Can you give me the link for the list of women's articles for Dragon? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Women biographies. Needs work though, what we need is a decent red linked list. Also we need to list existing articles on Welsh women too which need improvement. What I want is a detailed list of articles on Welsh women and missing ones. Is there a way to create one? Ipigott is good with things like this. Perhaps we could just list all of the existing Welsh women writers there too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld There's also this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality#Wales. Yes, Ian is great at making lists, but so are you. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I need to add all of the Dictionary entries to the missing hotlist too. I think the Welsh women list should be simplified as much as possible and turned into a simple A-Z.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Any chance you could create a List of Welsh women? I think it would be useful to have a comprehensive list covering all professions!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Are you asking for a list of blue-linked Welsh women or are you more interested in expanding the list of red links? If it's blue links, I would prefer first to create separate lists for Welsh women writers and Welsh women singers. Looking quickly at Category:Welsh women by occupation, Category:Welsh_women and List of Welsh people, I think an alphabetical list of all Welsh women, irrespective of occupation, would run to three or four hundred names. If this is what you want, I could possibly make a good start on it as part of the Dragon initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup I was thinking of a comprehensive mixed A-Z list. It would probably be too much work though. I was going to create a list. I may start something in my sandbox within the next few days. Don't worry about it for the time being.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, it's coming along quite well. Anyone else reading this is of course also welcome to participate. I'll try to get it more or less finished for the start of the Dragon on 1 April.--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Queenie Muriel Francis Adams

Good morning Rosiestep! Perhaps you can bring your talents and your posse to bear on this article, on a notable woman, by a new editor. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, Drmies. Will look at this tonight, but for now, tweeted it: https://twitter.com/WikiWomenInRed/status/714824289237610497 :) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Haha, is that good, to have something tweeted? I only read Trump's tweets! Drmies (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I don't know in the grand scheme of things if it's good or bad, but putting it out to the universe, via twitter or whatever, that a notable woman existed and this is one of the things she was known for, well, in my mind, that's a positive action, so I think it's good. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I read it. I couldn't put a heart on it, of course, since I don't have an account. I see that Yngvadottir, possibly a notable woman herself, made a few tweaks already. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Love the tabs!

I love the tabs. Makes it so much more easy to navigate IMO. Did I say it was a brilliant idea you had? I am thrilled you figured out how to do them! SusunW (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SusunW, that means a lot to mean. I ended up using the template for "clickable buttons" instead of "tabs" as I could master the former vs. the latter. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mount Pavlof

Alaska's Mount Pavlof volcano is erupting pretty vigorously, coating the nearby village of Nelson Lagoon in tephra. I have added this to the current events portal. All related articles are stable, so I'm not asking for help here. I just believe this will interest you! Enjoy! Juneau Mike (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Juneau Mike: Wow; thank you for sharing. I'll keep an eye on the news associated with Mount Pavlof. Be safe. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)