User talk:Oh-Fortuna!
Women in Red December 2022
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2023
[edit] 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in February 2023
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2023
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
David Eberhardt
[edit]Hi. I hope you are fine. I have removed a lot of unreferenced information. The new page review is one of the last approval stages, so when I see a page like this with a large amount of unreferenced information, and no {{In use}} tag to show that the page is undergoing a major build, I tend to err on the side of caution and remove the unreferenced information. The easiest solution is for you to add the tag to indicate the page is still under construction (if it is). This prevents me and other editors from editing the page until the process is complete and the tag is removed. Please assume good faith of me, as I do of you. By all means add the information again when you can add the references. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I definitely assume good faith. I know you all have a lot of work to do keeping people honest. But can I easily see what you removed so I can add references? Fortunaa (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found it. Looking now. Fortunaa (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| David Eberhardt is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
- That's awesome! We're a great team. I agree that some of this needed more citation. Today I'll look for the last few. Thank you. Fortunaa (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2023
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2023
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - June 2023
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A barnstar for you!
[edit]|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Wow. Mary Theodosia Mug is a stunning article. Great work!! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) |
- THANK YOU. You inspired me to do better work, and learn more. Fortunaa (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A piece of cake for you!
[edit]
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| A piece of cake for you! Thank you for participating. |
WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I love this... Fortunaa (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Since you gave me cake so generously, I wonder if you would have a moment to look at my new article for Arleen McCarty Hynes. As soon as I put it up, someone nominated it for deletion. I'm puzzled! She was listed on Women in Red, so I chose her and wrote the article. Fortunaa (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Never mind, group consensus fell in the article's favor, and they speedily removed the deletion request. I'm grateful to good people in the process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arleen McCarty Hynes - Wikipedia Fortunaa (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Since you gave me cake so generously, I wonder if you would have a moment to look at my new article for Arleen McCarty Hynes. As soon as I put it up, someone nominated it for deletion. I'm puzzled! She was listed on Women in Red, so I chose her and wrote the article. Fortunaa (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
[edit]|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Regina Purtell
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regina Purtell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
July 2023 GOCE drive awards
[edit]
|
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
| This barnstar is awarded to Fortunaa for copy edits totaling over 80,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Fortunaa for copyediting 20 articles during the GOCE July 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 4th Place | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Fortunaa for copyediting 61,589 total words during the GOCE July 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 4th Place | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Fortunaa for copyediting 6 long articles during the GOCE July 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:
- We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
- We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
- Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
- While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!
And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.
Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Your GA nomination of Regina Purtell
[edit]The article Regina Purtell you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Regina Purtell for comments about the article, and Talk:Regina Purtell/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Mertbiol, as suggested, I nominated it for DYK. Someone had to edit it (blush) because I mis-read an instruction, but they gallantly did and now it is in the queue. This is a thrilling process. Fortunaa (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
September 2023 at Women In Red
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
DYK for Regina Purtell
[edit]
On 3 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Regina Purtell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Regina Purtell took such great care of Theodore Roosevelt's Rough Riders that the press called her the Florence Nightingale of the Spanish–American War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Regina Purtell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Regina Purtell), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2023
[edit]
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023
[edit]
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Mary Clemente Davlin page
[edit]I was so pleased when a classmate of mine pointed me at the page you created for Sr. Clemente. I was a student of hers (1975-79) and stayed in touch with her until her death. I was glad, too, to fix a typo, as one tiny bit of tribute to her. I volunteer with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion and was glad that the page was already tagged of interest to the group. Given the interests you describe on your page, you would be welcome to check us out at any of our monthly meetings. The project page provides sign-up info. Part of our group will be conducting a pre-conference workshop at the AAR meeting later this month and others will present at Wikipedia North America in Toronto. If any of this is of interest, please join us. And thanks for creating that page! Engmaj (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- What a lovely note! I'm delighted that you found her page. Feel free to update it as you wish. And I'd be delighted to join. If you want to have a zoom chat to discuss, you can use this link to reserve time at your convenience: https://calendly.com/booklab/special-meetings Fortunaa (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eileen Niedfield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm so happy about this. Thank you. I'll watch eagerly. Fortunaa (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]The article Eileen Niedfield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eileen Niedfield for comments about the article, and Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, that's so exciting! Thank you for your diligent and thoughtful work. I'm deeply gratified, and I'll keep all of your recommendations in mind for improving it even more in the future. Fortunaa (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Review descrepencies
[edit]I am sorry, colleagues indicated descrepancies of my review, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Maxim%20Masiutin%20again
Therefore, I had to delete the unsourced dates and the paragraph I added from the article I reviewed.
Should you need to add those dates, back, please make sure they are backed up by reliable sources. They were not backed up and I should have indicated that to you rather than trying to fix myself.
Should you consider it necessary, you can comment on the link I sent you.
I am sorry that it turned out to be that way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Fortunaa@Fortunaa: - During the discrepancies in the review process that I committed I had to retract the GA status, the article returns the backlog of pending reviews and will be picked by another reviewer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1186450459&oldid=1186444458
I am sorry about that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I'm fine, but I'm sorry for you. I hope you feel okay about it. You were very kind, and it is fine with me to get back in line and wait for the next reviewer. I appreciate the time you took to do it, and I hope that you continue to do great work for Wikipedia. Fortunaa (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am a newbie in the reviewing process, but I aim to improve. There were a couple of unreferenced dates in the articles and I thought I could find source to back them up but that source turned out to be unreliable, and I delete those dates. Let me restore those dates and put "citation needed" template. If you find references, than great. If not, consider deleting this information. Also, there were passages about serving in remote areas and blood donation that I inadequately presented, please also consider presenting that adequately, because, I think, it is a major detail in the biography. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eileen Niedfield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. I appreciate the speedy re-review, and I've enjoyed looking at your page and seeing your own good articles. Great work. Fortunaa (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]The article Eileen Niedfield you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Eileen Niedfield for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Fortunaa, don't be discouraged, the article is good in general and the observations by the reviewer are not numerous and are easy to fix, still, they are important, so you should be able to resolve them at ease. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is so kind of you to say this, and thank you. I'm doing okay... I could tell when the GA status was overturned that things were going in a--um--shall we say predictable direction. So I'm bummed but okay with it. However the team might want to consider using a word other than "failed" for what happens when it doesn't quite make the cut. After all, they have to be pretty nice articles to even get considered, yes? Maybe they could say "Didn't pass" (many courses in college are now taken pass/not pass rather than pass/fail for this very reason). But yes, when I finish writing an article I'm doing now on the centennial of the War Resisters League for the mainstream media, I'll come back to this one. It is encouraging people like you who make it worth it. Fortunaa (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Some reviewers give time to fix the problems that they noticed, and some do not give. Usually, they give time to fix problems which could be fixed quickly, but not this time :-(
- When you submit articles to GA, you are encouraged to review two other articles so that the queue move faster. I didn't plan to review, but when articles I nominated stayed for months, I decided to review some articles to clear the queue as recommended. I was new to this process and the experienced editors after after a while checked my reviews, although it is not a usual way of doing things. They upheld my reviews Melvin Ramsay (which I "passed") and Ruth Ann Davis (which I "passed") but invalidated my reviews for Eileen Niedfield (from "passed" to "returned to backlog") and XXXYY syndrome (from "failed" to "passed"). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I hope you are not discouraged, either! You were the first reviewer, yes? I really appreciated your confidence in this. She was amazing to write about. Fortunaa (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it was interesting for me what happened with the article after the second review, and I was said when it did not pass. Please consider doing a couple of reviews, but they take time. Also, don't start yourself like I did, because it is hard to do everything correctly without experience, find a mentor among people with many reviews who can give you suggestions before you make final verdict, therefore your reviews will not be invalidated.
- With Eileen Niedfield, please consider fixing the issues indicated by the reviewer and nominate again. It will get GA sooner or later. While doing other things, you would not notice how time will pass.
- Have a nice day! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mostly write articles on endogenous steroids (steroid hormones of which are naturally produced by human body, mostly by the adrenal gland) and the enzymes that our body uses to make these hormones. When I submitted a few of such articles to the "Biology and Medicine" category, I then decided to review a few articles of that category, and there were mostly biographies of people famous in medicine, and I didn't have experience in writing biographies in Wikipedia, so I was uncomfortable reviewing biographies. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Would you please consider improving the article for Eileen Niedfield according to the comments left by the reviewer AirshipJungleman29 and re-nominating it? Just don't re-nominate without improving, or the new reviewer may reject it for the same reason as stated by the previous reviewer. Don't give up; I also had my nominations rejected, and even reviews rejected, but I try to improve and try to nominate articles again and reviews again. You will make a pleasure for me if the article Eileen Niedfield get the GA status, because I spent time on this article and I don't like the time to be spent without specified result. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin You're right, and I'll focus on that in the next few days, I promise. Fortunaa (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I did a few successful reviews after your one, but I cannot review your article to avoid bias, anyway, I keep my fingers crossed :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You inspired me to get to it, so I sat down this morning and made some changes. I am re-nominating it now. Thank you for the nudge! You are inspiring to work with. Fortunaa (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! A few minutes ago I changed some references for uniformity. I also declared date format to "MDY", please follow this format in the article in the future, or, if you wish to use other format, define a new one in the "Use MDY format" template at the beginning of the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin That's great. Fortunaa (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also going to follow your advice to review articles for GA by participating in the backlog drive. I have a note in to one of the coordinators to learn more about how. Fortunaa (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I honoured your advice to use "does not pass" rather than "fail" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Hanham_Collyer/GA1 -- so I thinked about your nomination. I see it is pending review since 6 March 2024. Let us wait. Sooner or later it will be picked by a reviewer and will pass. Wish you well! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin Thank you for checking in! I am hopeful. Fortunaa (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I had to mark one GA nominee article as "did not pass". I reviewed 4 articles recently. Three of them I marked as "passed" and one "did not pass". I hope that your one will pass for sure. However, I may not be always able to track the progress. Would you mind letting me know once you get the result, so I would be grateful!? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin Yes, I will be happy to. Fortunaa (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I had to mark one GA nominee article as "did not pass". I reviewed 4 articles recently. Three of them I marked as "passed" and one "did not pass". I hope that your one will pass for sure. However, I may not be always able to track the progress. Would you mind letting me know once you get the result, so I would be grateful!? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin Thank you for checking in! I am hopeful. Fortunaa (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I honoured your advice to use "does not pass" rather than "fail" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Hanham_Collyer/GA1 -- so I thinked about your nomination. I see it is pending review since 6 March 2024. Let us wait. Sooner or later it will be picked by a reviewer and will pass. Wish you well! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! A few minutes ago I changed some references for uniformity. I also declared date format to "MDY", please follow this format in the article in the future, or, if you wish to use other format, define a new one in the "Use MDY format" template at the beginning of the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You inspired me to get to it, so I sat down this morning and made some changes. I am re-nominating it now. Thank you for the nudge! You are inspiring to work with. Fortunaa (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I did a few successful reviews after your one, but I cannot review your article to avoid bias, anyway, I keep my fingers crossed :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin You're right, and I'll focus on that in the next few days, I promise. Fortunaa (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is so kind of you to say this, and thank you. I'm doing okay... I could tell when the GA status was overturned that things were going in a--um--shall we say predictable direction. So I'm bummed but okay with it. However the team might want to consider using a word other than "failed" for what happens when it doesn't quite make the cut. After all, they have to be pretty nice articles to even get considered, yes? Maybe they could say "Didn't pass" (many courses in college are now taken pass/not pass rather than pass/fail for this very reason). But yes, when I finish writing an article I'm doing now on the centennial of the War Resisters League for the mainstream media, I'll come back to this one. It is encouraging people like you who make it worth it. Fortunaa (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024
[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
Women in Red February 2024
[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2024
[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2024
[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for Thomas Gumbleton
[edit]
On 9 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Thomas Gumbleton, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eileen Niedfield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryTheorist -- HistoryTheorist (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @HistoryTheorist Yay! Thank you. Fortunaa (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]The article Eileen Niedfield you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eileen Niedfield and Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA3 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryTheorist -- HistoryTheorist (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eileen Niedfield
[edit]The article Eileen Niedfield you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Eileen Niedfield for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryTheorist -- HistoryTheorist (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Once you finish cleaning up the article, I would be open to re-reviewing it at a later date. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so patient. I'm so grateful to you for you spending so much loving time on it. You're a great GA reviewer. I made a lot of changes right after you kicked it back to me, but then I lost it all before saving! I got busy and forgot to go back and re-do it. Right now I'm trying to find someone at Trinity Washington University (formerly Trinity College) who will confirm that she graduated magna cum laude with a degree in chemistry. It's people like you who make it worth doing Wikipedia. BTW, here's an article I published on this effort just this week: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/why-notable-catholic-sisters-need-wikipedia-pages-and-how-create-them Fortunaa (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aw thanks :) ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so patient. I'm so grateful to you for you spending so much loving time on it. You're a great GA reviewer. I made a lot of changes right after you kicked it back to me, but then I lost it all before saving! I got busy and forgot to go back and re-do it. Right now I'm trying to find someone at Trinity Washington University (formerly Trinity College) who will confirm that she graduated magna cum laude with a degree in chemistry. It's people like you who make it worth doing Wikipedia. BTW, here's an article I published on this effort just this week: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/why-notable-catholic-sisters-need-wikipedia-pages-and-how-create-them Fortunaa (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Hello! Having come across your GSR article about your efforts to turn Catholic sisters from red into blue pages, I just wanted to show respect for your work. Also, we mentioned you in the latest issue of the Signpost as an act of further appreciation. Thank you, and keep going! Oltrepier (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
- @Oltrepier You cannot imagine how much I needed this boost! It is just wonderful and I'm so grateful to you. If you ever want to tell me about your work, I'd be honored. https://calendly.com/booklab/special-meetings Fortunaa (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red July 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Fortunaa. Thank you for your work on Portrait of a Genius (short film). Another editor, Rosiestep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thank you for creating this article. I love learning about old films.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rosiestep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Rosiestep (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2024 at Women in Red
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November 2024
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The Newsy and the Tramp, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Fram (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted this edit where you added a space to the article. That was inappropriate. If you wish to leave a comment for another editor, please use their talk page or use the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. Please know that I'm always honored to actually make a change when asked. Another choice you have is to re-edit my edits... always appropriate! But reversions should be a last resort only. They can be considered hostile on Wikipedia. Reversions can even make editors leave Wikipedia altogether: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Fortunaa (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BRD. Reverts are one of the natural editing processes, not something to be avoided, and no discussion is needed to get permission to remove content or to revert an edit. What is a problem is repeatedly reinserting content without addressing the issue (or by adressing an unrelated issue[1]). Threatening to leave because you get reverted is not helpful at all though. Fram (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, this is going in an odd direction. I'm friendly, and only want peace and love on my page! If you want to talk IRL, please ask me for a calendar link. It will set up a zoom automatically and we can discuss in person. Fortunaa (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fortunaa, just to clarify. I have no problem with you and from what I've seen, your edits are basically uniformly constructive. I thought that particular one was a "bit iffy" and chose to leave a hand-written comment rather than a templated warning. I very sincerely wish both you and Fram happy editing. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! This is a lovely note. Fortunaa (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have no interest in an IRL discussion (nothing personal, I don't want this with anyone on Wikipedia). Fram (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fortunaa, just to clarify. I have no problem with you and from what I've seen, your edits are basically uniformly constructive. I thought that particular one was a "bit iffy" and chose to leave a hand-written comment rather than a templated warning. I very sincerely wish both you and Fram happy editing. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, this is going in an odd direction. I'm friendly, and only want peace and love on my page! If you want to talk IRL, please ask me for a calendar link. It will set up a zoom automatically and we can discuss in person. Fortunaa (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BRD. Reverts are one of the natural editing processes, not something to be avoided, and no discussion is needed to get permission to remove content or to revert an edit. What is a problem is repeatedly reinserting content without addressing the issue (or by adressing an unrelated issue[1]). Threatening to leave because you get reverted is not helpful at all though. Fram (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. Please know that I'm always honored to actually make a change when asked. Another choice you have is to re-edit my edits... always appropriate! But reversions should be a last resort only. They can be considered hostile on Wikipedia. Reversions can even make editors leave Wikipedia altogether: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Fortunaa (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 18:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
B Anne Gehman
[edit]It's not a question of whether I believe she is dead or not. It's a general principle, in line with BLP policy, that no Wikipedia editor should publish that someone is dead without reliable sources. The fact that the date is "unknown" is a concern. Are you saying that her date of death is unknown (which is notable), or that you don't know her date of death (which isn't)? If it's the latter, then the article shouldn't suggest that there's some mystery about the circumstances of her death. An imprecise 2024 will have to do. Thanks. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- That works. Thank you for caring so much about her. Fortunaa (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Fortunaa. Thank you for your work on James K. Freericks. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
This page contains far, far too much self-promotional material, music of which is routine. There are claims which are both unsourced and not informative. For instance, where is the evidence that his mother was a poet or his father a civil engineer? National merit scholar semifinalist is not major, as are his other high school details. Please trim, or another editor could (should) remove vast parts.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Ldm1954 (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time and caring! Please check the page now. Are there more specific areas that you think should be removed? I added book containing a biography of his mother and some of her poetry, and I removed some high school stuff. I also made the section about the book more neutral. Anything else you think needs work? Gratefully, Fortunaa (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're helping to make it a better page. Your attention is part of what makes Wikipedia reliable, and I'm grateful. Now I wonder if you would also consider taking down the flag if I *resolve* to work with you through what you consider to be the page's issues? You an I can think together about what content you consider "routine," for example, or which claims are unsourced. Fortunaa (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954: Fortunaa (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are definitely moving in the right direction. I am happy to work with you on this, although I may not respond that quickly to everything.
- I reduced the flags, and left an amended not on the talk page. I want to avoid another editor coming in and just removing stuff -- yes, there are people who just do that!
- Quick comments:
- Does the book on Mary's poetry say that Charles was (is) a civil engineer?
- You can't use the physics tree as a source (annoying, I don't like that but it is the concensus).
- For his senior thesis the link is better as a reference (also I don't like it, but it is the concensus). A few other places you have links in the body.
- Ref [11], does it really verify that he worked with Falicov? It may be better to use his thesis [12] which I expect has a statement.
- Keep the Fellow elections, they matter. I would remove the local Georgetown awards as they are not big enough. More can be less as he has other much more significant awards.
- Remove the NIRT award info, everyone who is any good gets funding from NSF.
- I am unclear how relevant it is that he offers the class over the summer
- External links go right at the end (before categories and any templates).
- Ldm1954 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954:
- 1. Does the book on Mary's poetry say that Charles was (is) a civil engineer? I took it all out.
- 2. You can't use the physics tree as a source (annoying, I don't like that but it is the concensus). Removed.
- 3. For his senior thesis the link is better as a reference (also I don't like it, but it is the concensus). A few other places you have links in the body. I'm not clear on why what I have isn't enough here. Clarify?
- 4. Ref [11], does it really verify that he worked with Falicov? It may be better to use his thesis [12] which I expect has a statement. I actually went to ProQuest and viewed the thesis just now, and Falicov is on it. I moved the citation up.
- 4. Keep the Fellow elections, they matter. I would remove the local Georgetown awards as they are not big enough. More can be less as he has other much more significant awards. Removed.
- 5. Remove the NIRT award info, everyone who is any good gets funding from NSF. I don't see it here.
- 6. I am unclear how relevant it is that he offers the class over the summer. Removed.
- 7. External links go right at the end (before categories and any templates). Moved.
- Fortunaa (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- NIRT = "nanotechnology interdisciplinary research team" (we use jargon all the time). The link policy is at WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is like a well-meaning but slow moving herd of elephants -- unless the issue really matters you have to get out of the way of the herd or get trampled to death. (I recently pushed back a little against this link policy, but got nowhere.) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954:, have a look now. Do you think I've gotten it to a place where it can be de-flagged? Fortunaa (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me now Ldm1954 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954:, have a look now. Do you think I've gotten it to a place where it can be de-flagged? Fortunaa (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- NIRT = "nanotechnology interdisciplinary research team" (we use jargon all the time). The link policy is at WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is like a well-meaning but slow moving herd of elephants -- unless the issue really matters you have to get out of the way of the herd or get trampled to death. (I recently pushed back a little against this link policy, but got nowhere.) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954: Fortunaa (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)