User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

A kitten for you!

Withe love, Olfa from Tunisia

Ovva olfa (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kitten, Ovva olfa! I really appreciate it. Hope all is well in Tunisia. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Interview request

Hi Rosie,

I'm a freelance journalist currently working on a story for Radio New Zealand about the representation of women in Wikipedia articles and I would love to learn more about your involvement in Women in Red. Would you be available for a short Skype or phone interview at some point in the near future? If so, or if you have any questions, please send me an email at Thomas.V.Phillips@gmail.com - I would be extremely grateful for your time!

Kind regards,

Thomas Phillips

P.S. This is my first time using a Wikipedia talk page so please accept my apologies for any mistakes I might have made! TommyWommy (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi TommyWommy. Thanks for reaching out to me. I've emailed you. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Gerda Arendt, for continuing with this tradition, and remembering this six year anniversary. I am so honored! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't think I can remember, - I just have a good list ;) - I am proud that I kept the tradition the longest, - stubbornness has its merit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

February WiR invitations

Hi Rosie. I think you are back from your vacation today. If so, and if you have time, would you send out the invitations for February. I asked Megalibrarygirl a couple of days ago but she has not been active since. If neither of you have time, I'll send them out one-by-one tomorrow but mass messaging is certainly much easier.--Ipigott (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ipigott, I'm actually not home till tomorrow morning but had time to send out the invitation so this is done. Thanks for creating it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

@Rosiestep: please fix the glaring typo before you distribute this further. Thanks! — Wyliepedia 15:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, CAWylie. I won't do that again: send out a MassMessage while traveling instead of concentrating on the task at hand. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's okay. You should see my zombie edits done when I should be sleeping. — Wyliepedia 02:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Defining women by their relationships

Hi Rosie,

I want to discuss the guidelines for writing about women listed below. It is included on the WikiProject_Women web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_about_women

I read the above guidelines for writing about women before I created my first article. The section 4.1, which discusses women and their relationships, was a bit of an eye-opener for me. I often think of women not only by their accomplishments, but also by their relationships.

After reading the essay, I have followed these guidelines and do not include women's spouse, children, other family relationships in the articles I create unless the family member is historically significant or professionally related.

This month as a new editathon participant, I noticed that women's relationships are still being included in Women in Red biographies.

I am bringing up this topic with you because you are a co-founder of WikiProject_Women and Women in Red and an editathon facilitator. If editors are still including information about women's relationships in their biographies, especially the infoboxes, then should I continue to follow those guidelines?

Should there be a new discussion about guidelines for writing about women? Are editors who write about women aware of those guidelines? Are those guidelines for writing about women still relevant?

I would like to get your thoughts on these questions.

Thanks MauraWen (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen and Rosie, I hope you don't mind me commenting here. That essay advises editors to be careful not to define women by their relationships, as in (example copied from the essay: "Susan Smith is the daughter of historian Frank Smith and wife of actor John Jones. She is known for her work on game theory"). But it's absolutely fine to mention their relationships. Just try not to prioritize them. The relevant section is WP:WAW#Defining women by their relationships. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MauraWen Another page-stalker chiming in... WIR's Primer perhaps makes it more clear. Women on WP are not notable because of an association with someone else, but rather in their own right. Thus you should avoid making statements in the lede about associations with others unless completely necessary. However, one can hardly create a comprehensive article without mentioning the significant others in their lives. (Besides which, it is rare before, even 1950, to be able to find information on many women unless you can determine the significant other people in their lives and sort of back into their stories.) As long as you keep the focus of the article on the subject, rather than the other people, you should be fine. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen and thank you for bringing this up; and well said, SlimVirgin and SusunW's comments as this is except to say that as you write anyone's biography, consider if you would word your sentences differently if the subject were one gender or another.

Hi MauraWen, and thanks for reaching out to me. I'm glad you are interested in writing about women, and after reviewing some of the articles you wrote, I'd say you have a good understanding of how to do so. SlimVirgin and SusunW's comments match my views on the subject. As for the pages which you and SusunW linked here, they aren't set in stone so if you have thoughts on how to improve them or make things clearer for the next editor, please suggest, or be bold and just make the edit. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Spofford Morgan

thanks immensely for taking care of this article. It's an example of the sort of article on notable women that people ought to be writing. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, DGG, you are so right. The article is about a notable woman and it just needed a bit of wiki-style TLC. I know you see a lot of things as you're on ArbCom so if you come across similar notable women's biogs which need some TLC, just drop me a note, and I'd be glad to give them a little attention, ok? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

sure, but it wont be from arb com, which doesn't deal with that sort of thing. Most of it will be from working with AfC and NPP. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge Universidad Católica Santo Domingo

I am writing about a woman who is the rector of the Universidad Católica Santo Domingo. Appears we have two articles. The first one created is that link. The second one Universidad Católica de Santo Domingo should probably be a redirect, but I have no clue how to merge the two. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, SusunW.  Done. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gracias mi amiga. I could do a redirect, but that merge thingy always stumps me. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

De nada. A "merge redirect" is the way to go if there was ANY content, even one sentence (as in this case), as it includes entire attribution history (somehow). Plain redirects are good if there's no content to begin with. Merging and splitting is one of the few "techie" things I've mastered so I actually delight in the occasions when I can put that skill to good use. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Boundbreaker on the editathon page

It looks like you have been improving the Women's History page this week. Good stuff! I have been researching and adding new names to the Women's activists section. Thanks for your advice this week, so much for me to learn. And please call me Maura. MauraWen (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

March is commonly an exciting month for us, @Maura. Glad you'll be a part of it this year! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Fuller Adams

This woman was English, and her name should therefore follow English naming conventions.

Her baptismal names were Sarah Fuller and her family name was Flower, that of her father. So she was Sarah Fuller Flower until she married. She then took the family name of her husband, becoming Sarah Fuller Adams. At no point in her life was she ever Sarah Fuller Flower Adams, and the title of the Wikipedia article is wrong.

In the next few days I shall correct it, in the process reverting your recent alteration, and will also trawl through other references in Wikipedias of all languages to standardise the nomenclature.

Clifford Mill (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There I was, lecturing you on English naming customs, when I now see that there is no article about them on this English Wikipedia, only an inadequate effort under the ambiguous title of English names. If I put up an article on English naming customs, would you be game to review it? Clifford Mill (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

PS My boast of reviewing Wikipedias of all languages should be reduced to those which I can read.

Hi Clifford Mill and thanks for reaching out. Ok with me if you move the article to whatever title you think is better, but do consider that she is referred to as Sarah Fuller Flower Adams in at least two books; see here and here. If you do move it, please leave a redirect. While an essay on English naming customs would be useful, do bear in mind that there are diverse Women's naming customs, which is touched upon, but not definitive, in this essay by Women in Red. In any case, I'd be delighted to discuss this topic further with you. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Teahouse responses are confusing me. Please advise

Hi Rosie,

I would appreciate you looking at my questions and the responses from teahouse about Roza Salih.[1] Also, the below sentence confuses me. I don't understand what he is saying.
"I don't know whether WikiProject Women in Red has a special practice for their project pages but we never display redirect links as red in articles."
The responses are that she is a redirect, but when I look at the [[Glasgow Girls (activists)] article, I just see her name as text. I did not find her when I did a search on her name in Wiki.

The Teahouse Question and responses.
[2]

Am I doing this correctly? She has more sources now, she is considered one of the most influential Scottish adults under 30 and she has run for political office. I thought she deserved a bio. Thx MauraWen (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Maura. His point is that there is no easy way for a "redirect about Roza" to show as a redlink as a redirect is always a bluelink. One thing you could do if you wanted to add Roza's name to a Women in Red crowd-sourced list of activists (this is what I think you are trying to do), is to make the redlink something more than just her name (which is currently a bluelink redirecting to her group's name). A possibility would be: Roza Salih (Glasgow Girls) or Roza Salih (activist). If you do this, be sure to include all the URLs you found to sufficiently establish notability as the article which had existed on Roza was deleted due to the notability issue, for example, if she won a political election (not just run for office) or was elected school superintendent, etc. As an Admin, I could access the deleted article and I've provided it to you in your sandbox here, User:MauraWen/Sandbox Roza Salih, so that you can use it as a starting point for further work if you wish. Hope this helps, but if you have further questions, just let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauraWen (talk • contribs) 10:50, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month

You've done such a good job with the Women's History Month editathon page, Rosie, you might like to provide an equally attractive invitation incorporating the two icons. (If you are too busy, let me know and I'll see what I can do myself.)

In this connection, in the past few days two editors have commented on the lack of visibility of our lists of red links. It seems to me that the main problem is that it is by no means obvious that the "Worklists" icon at the top of the main WiR page points to redlink lists. (Even I did not realize this until a few months ago.) I strongly suggest we try to change it to "Red links" and adapt the Worklists page accordingly. If you agree, we'll have to find someone who can handle the icon under the Template:Load WikiProject Modules as Harej and Isarra have not been active since November and as far as I can see no one is working on WikiProject X.

I see that Headbomb has recently recreated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index, apparently to make it easier to incorporate changes in the WiR template. Unfortunately, the "By historical ties to a region" section no longer reflects the links in the "By geography" section under Worklists. As far as I can see, we'll have to sort out the close (but not full) duplication of the Red list index and the Worklists index. Fortunately, I see Headbomb's "Red list index" is now linked from the main WiR template rather than forming a template section. We'll somehow have to sort out how to add all the links from the "By geography" section of the "Worklists" to what Headbomb calls "By historical ties to a region". I would suggest changing this to "By geographical region (crowd-sourced)". Once everything has been sorted out, we could no doubt somehow link the new "Red links" icon to the revised Headbomb list. This would save us a considerable amount of effort as we would have to update only one list instead of two when changes or additions are made. What do you think? Perhaps Megalibrarygirl would like to comment too as she is behind most of the crowd-sourced lists. I think we need to sort this out as soon as possible as we need to be fully prepared for Women's History Month.--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree one list would be better than two. I have no opinion on the state of each current list though, so if it's easier to update the Worklist index, rather than the Redlink index, do that. Also, I just re-used whatever names were in the template, if they're not accurate / could be better, just follow WP:BOLD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb: OK, for starters I'll update your Red list index as suggested above. Are you by any chance familiar enough with the Project X templates to be able to change the icon labelled "Worklists" to the same icon labelled "Red links"? I think that would be a big improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar at all with the WikiProject X framework. I'd make a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X or WP:VPT if I were you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the redlists need to be prominent. They are as important as the articles we are creating; equal footing IMO. Regarding the WikiProject X modules, I've reached out directly to Harej. Regarding the March invitation, I'll go ahead and get that created. Didn't realize there were two "index" lists; there should be just one. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Harej has asked me to connect with Isara, and I've reached out to her. Ipigott, I've created the March invitation and recruitment templates here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/2018#MARCH 2018. Megalibrarygirl, would you please also look at them for errors or other improvements? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:: Looks as if we are making good progress. I see Isarra has suddenly become active again with a proposal for a grant to extend Project X. I hope she will continue to be available for any work we need to have done on our WiR page. I like your new colour scheme on the invitations. I see you have also "made WHM blue". I think we could already start sending invitations to all those who are organizing their own meetups in connection with International Women's Day or Women's History month. I'll look into it today.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Ipigott, Isarra and I have connected. Agree... no reason to postpone sending out the invite. I can MassMessage today if you agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it may be a bit too soon to mail it out to everyone. I would suggest waiting another week or so as we should try to keep people interested in the priorities for February. On the other hand, I have started sending it to those who are arranging edtathons so that they can see what we are planning for March.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As there is so much press right now about March being Women's History Month, I think getting the invite out sooner rather than later is a good idea. The March event page does have links for our Feb offerings, so that should avoid confusion for what is happening when. Unless you or someone else opposes (pinging @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW for additional input), I'd like to get the invite MassMessaged over the weekend, if not sooner. An additional reason is that we're making the image campaign an equal priority with article writing, and this might need additional thought/preparation time. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference as to when it goes out, for me, I am never going to forget the significance of March (I love the play on words for protest) is women's month. Should you go ahead and send it, which I don't think is a bad thing, you might simply say if you want to go ahead and start writing about women, our projects for February are ... to make it more prominent. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking to invite the editors from this page, User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenartistsSearchResult, who are not on this list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List, and not on this list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out. What do you think, @Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Victuallers? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The more the merrier, IMO. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: The ones on the outreach list will receive invitations through the mass mailing. Nearly all those on AlexNewBot Women artists are picked up by Bobo's routine each month, as are the ones on AlexNewBot Women in Red. But it would not hurt to send out invitations to the more active participants. As Susun says, the more the merrier. As for the image campaign, it's unfortunate that the Whose Knowledge page has nothing on 2018. I thought they intended to start something up around now.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Rosiestep, SusunW, and Victuallers I like the templates and I fixed a small typo. I agree with Susun: the more the merrier! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott I think WK? is very busy and hasn't updated that page. They've hired 2 Wikipedians for the March image campaign; Megalibrarygirl and I spoke with them plus Seeeko last week. It's all good. On another note, does anyone know if the Bobo.03 recruitment efforts were continued in February? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott and Rosiestep, thanks for the ping on this. I sometimes forget we have that meta page! (Have been working more on our website and some other materials off-wiki lately) :) Page now updated with a link to the #VisibleWikiWomen Challenge as it comes together. Looking forward to collaborating with you all this March! Siko (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Seeeko. I've added Women in Red to the #VisibleWikiWomen Challenge page, and I'll update the Women in Red event page with the new information. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: I'm thinking to MassMessage the March invite tomorrow. If there are any reasons to delay further, please let me know, otherwise, I'll just do it. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Yes, it would be great if you could mail it out today. As we are also celebrating Women's History Month, I was wondering whether we should include something on the editathon page to encourage biographies on women from any walk of life who are of historical importance.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott: Yes, that makes sense. With a link to #1day1woman? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll add something.--Ipigott (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Join Women in Red

Yes, I invited them all to join but the response was not good. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Candidates/January 2018. We actually get far more members from other sources. This month we already have nine new registered members, only two from Bobo's list. I've also noticed a fair number of editors have included the WiR user box on their user pages without signing up as members. I've included their names on the main mailing list. The ones I've added to the mailing list today are: Biochemistry&Love, Cbderbylib, Fixer88, Frederika Eilers, Jack1956, Jenhawk777, Johanna-Hypatia, JSFarman, Jxm, Mramoeba, Rachelschm, Raynatravis, and Rickyc123. (If they don't want to receive our announcements they should let me know and I'll remove their names from the mailing list. On the other hand, it would be good if they joined WiR as registered members using the box at the top of the main WiR page.--Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I welcome your inclusion of me. Thanks! Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you also for adding me. I understood that I was already registered. jxm (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the inclusion - I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so a lot of this is uncharted territory for me. I'd love to join as a full member of WiR though. -CBDerbyLib (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Johanna-Hypatia and Jxm:: To become a full member of WiR, you should join up using the box at the top of the main WiR page. I'm afraid I can't really do it for you!--Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Johanna-Hypatia and Jxm: welcome to the Women in Red community! I am so happy to meet you! If you have any thoughts on what sort of virtual events we should focus on in 2018, please do share your ideas. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Page stalker here, yes welcome aboard @Johanna-Hypatia and Jxm:. If I can help in any way, please feel free to ping me. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. I've been signed up with WiR for a couple of years now. What shall I do to stay au courant with the latest activity? You mentioned a mailing list. You've got my email address? Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Johanna-Hypatia: We don't need your external email address. You'll be notified on your user talk page. In fact you've also been registered as a WiR member for two years but for some reason your name was not on our mailing list but I've added you now. And apologies here too to Jxm who was indeed registered as a member but was not on our mailing list.--Ipigott (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rosie and Ipigott - thanks for pinging me. I didn't know there was a formal sign up. I just registered, psyched to be more involved. JSFarman (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, JSFarman. Jazzed to hear from you and always happy to work with you! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Rosie . Just found your note about moving the Women in Ecology redlist info (two yrs ago). I'm still here, just haven't been wikiing in quite a while and feeling rusty. Still interested-- I'll try to get signed up with WiR soon. Also still tweeting #womeninecology, so will look for WiR there as well. Thanks! --Araucana (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Araucana. Nice to hear from you! No worries about feeling rusty. Jump in any time, and happy editing. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata support for our articles

As you mentioned you had been going through older articles on women writers, ensuring the Wikidata entries were correct, I thought I would check my own earlier bios. I'm pleased to report that the Wikidata entries were very good in nearly all cases, with only a few missing nationalities (now fixed). That might be because I systematically added the old PERSONDATA which I think at one point was fed into Wikidata. It will be interesting to see if tomorrow's WHGI results have jumped as much as last week's.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott; good to know. The articles I created are pretty clean, too. But, there are thousands of Wikidata items on women writers in every language who don't have a statement for writer, but do have a statement for some type of writer, e.g. poet, novelist, translator, and so forth. These are the ones I'm working on. I also started adding Authority control to women writers Commons cats. Another time-consuming task, but really does need to be done. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought adding writer to poets, novelists, etc., was something that could easily be handled by a bot. I don't bother with the entries in other languages as I find it is pretty tedious to edit Wikidata without the "gadget" and I don't know how to load it for other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I use a feature designed by Magnus Manske (Wikidata Userfuls) so it's one click to create a new occupation claim for someone who already has an item. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WiR main page

I'm glad to see Isarra has finally relieved us of the Project X straightjacket. It's certainly much more convenient and convivial to be able to edit the page ourselves rather than having to call on outsiders whenever we need a minor modification. I would have pushed for this much earlier if I had not appreciated how very keen you were on adopting the Project X approach. However, from what Isarra says, you are now happy with the new, less complex set up. Now that the page can be edited, others may well come up with suggestions for improvements. Let's see how it goes over the next month or so and whether others are happy with the elimination of the icons. In any case, our red lists are now much easier for all to see.--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, glad you're happy with the outcome. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Even better now that the main icons are back. Isarra has been doing a great job for us.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree about the icons, Ipigott. They really are useful (and nice looking). Plus, yes, Isarra is really on top of things. I hope the grant to continue this work gets approved. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Rosiestep. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Newspapers.com Account - The Wikipedia Library.
Message added 19:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cameron11598. I've responded! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Air your thoughts?

Would you like to take a moment and describe your views on the topic of quality articles vs. quantity articles at User:Eddie891/sandbox/Quality v. Quantity for a Wikipedia Signpost Report? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891 - Thanks for the invitation. I have added some of my thoughts to that page. Good luck with the Signpost article! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tireless

Thanks for all the work you do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Hopefully DYK will do the WiR project proud on 8 March. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You made my day, @Floquenbeam, Another Believer, and The Rambling Man. Thank you very much! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: I see that the DYKs tomorrow are indeed firmly based on women but unfortunately the level of hostility on DYK has reached such a level that many of the old contributors have withdrawn. While I certainly agree that Rosie continues to do a fantastic job, she will remember that a few years ago we had three sets of seven DYKs on women over the 24 hours on 8 March: see 2014, 2013, 2012, etc. It's too bad we can't do better than eight DYKs for tomorrow. Perhaps you or Rosie have some constructive ideas on how to restore the old fun and enthusiasm. Two of our most enthusiastic editors have been chased away from DYK since this time last year.--Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been an adherence to quality standards that's caused any hostility in my opinion. Back in the "good old days" of DYK, genuine rubbish was making it all the way to the main page. At least now we have more eyes on that. But of course, people don't like having "their" work or "their" hooks being criticised. The closed QPQ process means that many hooks would previously have made it to the main page with just one real review which is the bog-standard checklist. We only have eight hooks because that's all we need, DYK rotates once per day now, not three sets of seven per day or any other combination. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: The result, unfortunately, is that far fewer recent editors ever get to see one of their articles on the main page. In past years, many of us worked in teams to make sure the articles nominated for DYK were brought up to standard. Almost all of the DYKs listed on my user page are a result of that process. I still look carefully at DYK every day, as I have for a number of years, often correcting the errors or omissions I find, as time permits. As an added extra, I also make sure that for all the women's biographies, the essentials are added to Wikidata, as no one else seems to see that as a priority. I am not at all convinced that the standard today is any higher than it used to be. That said, we are grateful in particular to Yoninah who constantly supports the inclusion of articles about women. As a result, the proportion of women's biographies on DYK is now much higher than it ever was — so that is indeed a step in the right direction. (Sorry, Rosie, to have extended this discussion on your talk page but I thought it was worthwhile commenting.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Enough now. If you have something constructive to suggest to the DYK project, please do it there rather than continually pinging me here. DYK quality is significantly higher than it used to be, this is, after all, an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

SFMOMA Edit-a-Thon in San Francisco, March 8

You're invited to an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon at SFMOMA in San Francisco on Thursday March 8, 5-9 pm. It'll be at 151 Third Street, 2nd floor, free to the public. Everyone is welcome to participate in an evening of communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism. (This message is from User:Dreamyshade. You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day LA, March 31

Wikipedia Day LA 2018

Please join us from 10:00 am - 5:00 pm on Saturday, March 31st for Wikipedia Day LA 2018 at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. There will be speakers, panel discussions, a presentation on Wikidata, flash sessions, and a discussion about the formation of an LA User Group. There could be dramatic readings of LA-related talk pages, and there will be truly excellent cake. Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here, and follow us on Twitter . To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

• Hi JSFarman - The Ace Hotel has such a cool vibe going, I know the event will be a success! Sorry, though, that I can't make it this year as I leave April 1st for Serbia. Let me know if you still want me to ship those space banners to you or the venue? And have fun at Wikipedia Day! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Rosie! I wish you could be there. But I'm pretty sure Serbia will be more exciting than downtown LA! And yes, please, on the banners. I'll message you with the info. Thank you! Come to LA soon! JSFarman (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mary Stuart Smith

I want to thank you for creating this article. Mary Stuart was an ancestor of mine. FYI, I have created an article for her father which is awaiting review. Cheers!Hoppyh (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, Hoppyh. It was a pleasure to work on it, and I see that you have improved it, so thank you for that. BTW, I have moved the article on Gessner Harrison out of draft space; you have done a fantastic job on it. If you have any others at AfC that you'd like me to review, please let me know. In general, though, I don't think you need to go through the AfC process anymore. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well this was a smart move on my part. Thank you again. Hoppyh (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Join us tomorrow for the last event in the series Women in the Wikimedia movement: Women in technical spaces!

Hi! Thank you for signing up to attend one or multiple virtual events in the conversations series Women in the Wikimedia movement . Your participation has made the events and conversation really interesting and good so far.

In about 12 hours, we will be hosting the last event of the series, Women in technical spaces. The virtual event will take place on BlueJeans, and will be broadcasted on YouTube. Our presenters will be Josephine Lim, who will be presenting about her work contributing to the Wikimedia Commons Android app, and Ciell and Ecritures, who will be sharing their experience creating an all-women and non-binary people hackathon in the Netherlands. After their presentations, there will be some time for conversations. I want to encourage everyone to participate! To this end, please join us on the BlueJeans link if you are able.

I look forward to seeing you tomorrow! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References