User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(from Olivier Tanguy)

Hello, thanks for your welcome. I'm french and i write more often on Fr:Wp. I know how to use Wp but it's very kind to make this message. I apologize cause I don't write very well english.

FYI, new messages go at the bottom, so I missed this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pascoe St Leger Grenfell

Can you please explain your edit/redaction for this artilcle. This entry is now redirecting to his father Pascoe Grenfell. They are not the same people. He is an important historical figure in Adelaide, South Australia and is often confused with his father of the same name. I have drawn information and text from many sources that are referenced and cross referenced to other family members. Can you please undo your edit, and I can change any small details that you have deemed copied? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelLight (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@ColonelLight: Thank you for your interest in creating that article. Unfortunately the content was copied from this site which has a full copyright.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am going to correct it, but you have made a mess of it by redirecting any references to Pascoe St Leger Grenfell to his father Pascoe Grenfell which is completely incorrect. Please undo the redirection and reinstate at lease the name and birthdate information. You have been excessive in your editorial assessment. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelLight (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@ColonelLight: I simply restored the article to the state before your edit at which time it was a redirect. Please feel free to start over, although using a user sub page or draft space is always a good idea for new editors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivan Mihailov

Hi, Sphilbrick. The text I have added was partially reworked and taken from the article IMRO in English Wikipedia, by whose creation I have also participated several years ago. Chek on: [1]. There is even inscription on the bottom, that the text was taken from English Wikipedia. The whole article from Wikipedia was copy-pasted there. Please, correct yourself. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Incorporation of material from other articles in Wikipedia is permitted but to preserve attribution, the source should be indicated in the edit summary. Please see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia for best practices.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jingiby:I undid the revdel, so you can revert and add the proper edit summary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

Could you restore a deleted page please? User:Piriczki/sandbox/Let It Be Thank you. Piriczki (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Piriczki: The most recent version was blank so I reverted to the most recent non-blank version.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not copyvio

Reverted your edit, as you see e.g. here the somewhat same wording was on the wiki page back in 2012, so the site you refer to sampled text from wiki, it's not the other way around. regards, You.dont.know.what.you.dont.know (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@You.dont.know.what.you.dont.know: Sorry I missed that, thanks for letting me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Your view on copyvio

You seem to have experience with Wikicommons questions. There is currently a discussion on the FAC for Akira Kurosawa which shares several images from Wikicommons with several other editors and articles in different Wikipedia articles. One of the editors at FAC has expressed the opinion that copyvio works differently for peer review articles than for regular Wikipedia articles. My point was that copyvio remains copyvio whether for peer review articles or start articles, and once identified then the copyvio would need to be removed regardless if it is found on a peer reviewed article or a start article. Could you glance at the current FAC for Akira Kurosawa? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I agree with those who are asserting that public domain and fair use are not the same thing. I am aware that many marketing outlets, particularly those for films, created posters and other images and permitted those to be widely distributed. However, unless they explicitly provided a free license, those images was still subject to copyright and not "free enough" to be treated as free in the context of Wikipedia. I won't be surprised if some of those involved in the marketing talked about the free use of such images and may have uses phrases such as these can be considered to be in the public domain, but the term "public domain" in the context of Wikipedia and image use mean something very specific. It means that it is sufficiently old, or explicitly by law declared to be public domain such as certain works of the federal government. I didn't see the statement that "copyvio works differently for peer review articles than for regular Wikipedia articles". I would disagree with that statement and if you can point me to whomever set it I'd be happy to have a conversation with them. Having said that I wonder if the gatekeepers of featured articles have taken the position that fair use images are fine for most Wikipedia articles but featured article should adopt a higher standard. This would not be equivalent to saying that copyvio works differently, but perhaps someone casually said something to that affect.

I don't intend to weigh in at the discussion there because my impression is that I agree with the general consensus. Let me know if you think I've missed something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the general consensus on that FAC still taking place. A new editor has entered the Kurosawa FAC in progress and is re-opening the question of the images used in this Kurosawa article based on WIAFA#3. Given this new information may I ask that, regardless of other editors at Wikipedia currently sharing the images in the Kurosawa article on other Wikipedia pages, that you simply delete any images currently used in the article which may be deemed by the current stewards of the FAC page and process to be in any way unsuitable. Since you are familiar with the various complexities of Wikipedia operations, could you simply remove the images in the article which are deemed the source of the good faith concerns for the integrity of the FAC process by the current stewards of the FAC process? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm traveling at the moment. I glanced at the discussion see Nikkimaria involved, who is very well-versed on policy. I don't think I should get involved without fully understanding the issues, and I simply don't have the time at the moment. Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

Did you really mean User_talk:DGG#Sorting_by_size_of_editor_-_not_exactly.2C_but_maybe_close_enough.3F? The joys of predictive text? PamD 17:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: DGG and I were discussing who are the biggest editors - perhaps I misunderstood him? No, just kidding, yes of course. He wants a sort of individual edits, while the table has the size of contribution by editor, rather than edit. I really was thinking editor, in the sense of "size of total contributions by each editor" but took a shortcut which led to a different meaning. Thanks for catching it, I've edited it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't just fix it as a typo just in case you meant some measure of prolific-ness of editors! The notion of editors by size is interesting... height? waist circumference? !!! PamD 17:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@PamD:I am supportive of your caution. Having said that, on occasion I have simply corrected a typo, but if I think there's any possibility that I'm missing a subtlety or a joke, I'll poke the editor as you did.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

More history to delete

You deleted a revision of My Cousin Rachel (2017 film) for copyright infringement. There's since been three more edits violating copyright. Perhaps also protect from anons? I'm getting tired of the clowns. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a short stint of semi-protection. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting "copyrighted" text

Seems you may have fallen into the old trap of assuming that Wikipedia mirrors are somehow the "original" texts that Wikipedia has copied when you deleted revisions from the Nipponosaurus article. A very quick glance at the article you linked[2] shows that it uses Wikipedia images, so it isn't a very long stretch to imagine they have copied our text too. I'll ping Lusotitan, so this can be clarified. If this turns out to be correct, it is very bad practice, and you should bring such issues up on the talk pages before drive-by deleting text. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Even more damning, I checked our article's revision history, and the text you deleted existed in the article before the mirror page you claim we copied was even online (2014).[3] So restore the revisions immediately, and please never make such haphazard deletions again. I wonder how much good Wikipedia text has been lost in this ridiculous way, as this talk page indicates this isn't the first time it happens. This tag[4] exists for a reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I do about 100 copyvio checks a week. 99 out of 100 are fine. Some get mistagged due to mirrors. I think the type 1 versus type 2 errors are acceptable; I skip over obvious mirrors often. If you have a suggestion for how to reduce the error rate without materially slowing down the process, I'm all ears.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is any reasonable doubt, just add a copyvio tag, then it will be determined by the regular editors of said page whether it is actually a copyvio or not. In this case, I don't see why "speed" should somehow be important. What's important is retaining perfectly good text. Anyhow, it took me less than two minutes to determine which text was the oldest (the mirror page even has a date at the bottom, so I just checked against the history of our article), so if I can, I'm sure you can too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a reasonable process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever participated in reviewing possible copyright issues at Copypatrol? That tool has, I believe, a list of mirrors, but may have missed some. Several hundred items are flagged every week. I urge you to handle a hundred or so, and see if you truly think adding a copyvio tag (and thereby increasing the load materially on other editors) is truly a sensible process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

" A very quick glance at the article you linked" [5] shows the following at the bottom of the page "Copyright © 2014 rareresource.com - All Rights Reserved." It may be that this notice is in error, but that is hardly obvious. That notice is more obvious to me than the fact that it may had Wikipedia images. Almost all pages have images, and Commons has millions. Perhaps you recognized them, but I did not, and I submit that it would be ludicrous to propose that one should double-check image on any page to see if they happen4ed to be in Commons or Wikipedia. Your proposed process doesn't work, and if I sound snippy, it's because your condescending attitude is off-putting.

I am truly interested in improving the efficiency of detecting and correcting copyright violations and avoiding false positives, but your proposed process either makes no sense or you haven't explained it adequately.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Errr, is it "increasing their load" to provide them the opportunity to save text they have worked hard to write from getting deleted? Can you explain to me why it would be preferable to simply delete it without warning? Seems truly baffling and counterproductive to me. More importantly, it goes against our rules, see WP:Copyvio: "If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page "copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known", unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." So what I have proposed you should do is simply what you have to do according to our rules. Whether you think this is "not reasonable" or "doesn't work" is irrelevant, it is our rules, and you have to comply. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get it.

I request again - handle 100 incidents at Copypatrol and see if you still support that advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I "get" or not, but whether you follow our rules or not. I'd rather see this process slowed down than having perfectly fine text drive-by deleted (you're throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater). I will have to bring this highly disruptive behaviour up elsewhere if I see it again. That should be all. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter whether you "get it". You are castigating a fellow editor for making a minor, understandable mistake, acting like it is a big deal, and showing no evidence that you understand the problem. So yes, the fact that you do not "get it" matters. If you "got it" you'd be thanking me for the hundreds of copyright errors I catch, not excoriating me over one I mishandled and acting like I shouldn't have missed it.

I have made mistakes in the past. I will undoubtedly make mistakes in the future. When I make a mistake, I try to examine what went wrong so I can change my processes. I examine what went wrong in this case, but I don't think you realize that the only change in process is so ludicrous it's unbelievable.

Here is what you think I should have done — upon seeing the full copyright all rights reserved notice on the bottom of the page I should ignore it. Even though it is accurate 99.99% of the time, is a tiny chance that the person placing it is an error so just ignore it. Next, go to Commons and memorize the 41 million images. That might take a few minutes, but it will be helpful so you can look at a page purporting to be fully copyrighted and see if you recognize any of the images on the page as actually being from Commons. If you recognize one of the images, you will realize that may be the copyright notice was an error and they've actually copied from Wikipedia.

Can you actually comprehend how ludicrous your proposal is? You actually proposed that I should do this.

And please tone down the rhetoric. A less than 1% error rate does not remotely qualify as "throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater".--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Lewis DYK nomination

Hi there, just a heads up that your nomination was not completed successfully. You need to follow the instructions here, which will walk you through it. Also, why are there two articles on the same person (one, two)? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Oh dear.

As part of a women in red initiative to work on female Wikipedia Olypians without an article:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/55

I created a list of all US female Olympic basketball players:

User:Sphilbrick/US_Olympic_Basketball_players

And decided to work on the red link for 1976 (1980 is a special case).

Charlotte Lewis was a blue link but because it referred to an actress so I created Charlotte Lewis(basketball) And began working on it, completely missing that there already was Charlotte Lewis (basketball). (The difference being whether there is a space before the parenthetical or not).

What makes it more embarrassing is that I worked on the other article, albeit three years ago. Still I should've remembered. Not only that, I contributed almost all of the content.

I haven't yet figured out what to do except the newer one is much better except that I see I overlooked the world university games and should add it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up {{u|Sphilbrick]]; I must admit, it made for a good laugh! I agree that the new one is better. How about copying the content over to the old page, while ensuring that you keep any content (e.g., the world university games) that is only on the old version? The new page could then be deleted, and it could then be looked on as a good rewrite of an old article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, have only just spotted that you are a sysop, Sphilbrick. Ah well, we all slip up. Forget what I said on the article's talk page; if the newer one is better, it's probably easier to merge content from the old article to the new one. Schwede66 22:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding content deletion

I was thinking that you could have just removed the copyright part. Ketan Hemnani (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I am taking about this page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dama_Dam_Mast_Qalandar Actually the content there is little bit misguided. As I am also a Sindhi speaker and therefore I know the reality and I have gone through various articles also before making changes. There has been confusion in the article. The article is trying to place two different personalities one and the same. And that needs to be corrected Ketan Hemnani (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ketan Hemnani: I don't fully remember the details, but when an edit includes a substantial amount a copyrighted material, the process is to revert the edits. Please make additions in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Cognitive capacity

Hah. Good catch. It honestly didn't strike me as well written enough to be a copyvio. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: This is too funny. Every morning, I tried to do some copyright work, and occasionally I see an article that has been tagged for some issue and I'm surprised that didn't look at it and think that it was very likely to be a copyvio and do a quick check. But I agree with you, this wasn't particularly well written, and you're right to be surprised that it was a copyright issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Robert N. Clinton

The information is from his website that is not copyrighted material. I am his research assistant and the information is allowed for common license.Soswitch93 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Soswitch93: I believe I found the information here:

https://isearch.asu.edu/profile/321397

Which does not have a free license, at least not one I could find.

Can you point me to a site that does contain the material and has a free license?

There will still be some problems including the puzzling decision by Arizona State University to use the information without attribution.

In addition, as his research assistant, you have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article. I'll provide a link for a way to request edits in such cases:

Wikipedia:Simple_COI_request --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrongly deleted page: British HIV Association

Hi Sphilbrick, you deleted the page I created for the British HIV Association (BHIVA), on grounds of copyright breach. I agree there is some overlapping content between this page and BHIVA's own website. However this page content was requested and approved by BHIVA's chair and executive officers for free use on Wikipedia so it is not a breach of copyright. Please could you re-instate the page, or let me know what I need to do in order to confirm that it's ok? Thanks Regordane (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Regordane: Unfortunately there are two problems with this request. The first is that content in Wikipedia is created by editors who are independent of the subject. We don't permit or encourage organizations or individuals to write about themselves. In the case of existing articles, we recognize that people close the subject may have special knowledge of shortcomings or errors but we prefer that those be handled by posting requests for improvements on article talk pages. We also have a formal process for requesting edits to existing pages: Wikipedia:Simple_COI_request

The second issue is that Wikipedia strongly respects copyright. In the case of either photos or text, in general we need the material to be freely licensed. This is common in the case of photos but less common in the case of text as it is often the case that text design for a different use is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In the rare case that the wording is acceptable, the holder of the copyright needs to file a permission statement and have it filed with OTRS. Is quite common for someone to state that they are willing to allow their words to be used in Wikipedia, but our licensing requirements are much stronger than that, essentially requiring that the words can be used by anyone anywhere for any purpose and can be modified. It is not uncommon that an organization initially approves usage of wording and when they find out the license requirements, reconsiders.

It would be best for an independent editor not affiliated with the organization, to decide what should be included in the article and how it should be written.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A-F

I think your A-F taxonomy of copyright misconceptions is worthy writing up somewhere, both for general education of newbies and for gentle correction of offenders. I don't think the best place is a new essay or whatever, but integration into something existing. I haven't wandered into copyright stuff much so I don't have an idea where offhand. EEng 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks for the comment. Oddly I had initially decided to just make a comment about the specific situation, but then I decided to add a couple more examples and as I wrote them the list kept growing. I agree it might be useful somewhere along not immediately sure where the best place is. Years ago, I decided I wanted to work on cleaning up our copyright discussions because they are fragmented and in many places but the more I looked into it the more it became like cleaning out the Augean stables and I never did anything about it. Maybe time to try again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• You're right on the money there, if you don't mind me saying, though there is a rare "G" case which you may remember as one of the few that MRG banned, which is someone who knows US (or wherever) copyright law and asserts that if it passes Copyright Law muster, that it's fine to include here, not realizing that we can set our own inclusion criteria... Crow^Caw 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I threw that list together in a few minutes so if I only missed one I will be stunned but you make a good point. Actually, I'm slightly surprised it didn't occur to me, as I have often been in copyright disputes where I have to explain that our internal rules are more stringent than US copyright law for deliberate reasons. This mainly comes up in the context of the length of quoted material, where we deliberately begin removing material even though it may be shorter than what might pass muster in a trial, if only because those rules are not fully objective.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, and I didn't mean to sound critical for "missing one"; I think that list did an excellent job of characterizing what we deal with, especially with the emphasis on AGF that almost always people aren't intentionally violating. :) Crow^Caw 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. When we template someone with, "You cannot just use stuff you found on the internet", the recipient thinks, "Well, they don't understand – that doesn't apply to what I did because the website didn't carry a copyright notice", or "That doesn't apply to what I did because I provided a full citation", or...; then they do it again and get blocked. By addressing these misconceptions directly perhaps a lot of drama can be avoided. The problem, of course, is template-bloat and helppage-bloat and everythingelse-bloat. EEng 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm growing more interested in formalizing this, if I can figure out how not to make it just one more essay on copyright.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep it in the back of your mind and sooner or later you'll run into the place to add it, and then ping me. EEng 14:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging