Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Elisa.rolle

FYI, Elisa.rolle has been indefinitely blocked with no talk page access by TonyBallioni for arguing about removal of sourced content on María Sáez de Vernet. The two (apparently male) editors with whom she had this dispute were unsanctioned. So in case any of you might be wondering why one of our more productive contributors has vanished, or more generally how women get driven away from editing Wikipedia, Tony is why. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

She was indefinitely blocked for edit warring with two editors over a span of 20 minutes after three previous indefinite blocks, and then using her talk page to ping everyone from an AfD after she had been blocked to further a content dispute while blocked. Her own behavior is why she is blocked. Like all blocks, if she is able to demonstrate that the underlying reason for the block (inability to follow basic policies in multiple areas and unwillingness to discuss it when people try to talk to her) the block can be lifted. The solution to disagreeing with other editors is discussion, not edit warring, and not refusal to engage with legitimate complaints. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, if you want to contest a block or otherwise raise a question regarding an administrator's conduct, the proper venue to do so is at WP:AN, not by spreading vitriolic comments in a WikiProject. Of course, if your entire purpose is to attempt to discredit Tony, then your comment will be considered a personal attack and be removed. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Thank you for telling me things I already knew that are unrelated to the purpose of my comment, which was to inform the project about a missing member and raise project-related issues, well-documented in the popular press, about Wikipedia's hostile treatment of female editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hostile treatment ? Elise.rolle has had exceptionally sympathetic treatment (count how many indefinite blocks they've had lifted) and if they were willing to adhere to the rules every other editor is expected to follow, they wouldn't be blocked at all. Nick (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to stick up for Elisa as much as I possibly can for the simple fact she can write about topics I haven't got a clue about, but AGF is not a suicide pact and as Nick says, WP:3RR is still a policy and something we block for. We have plenty of editors, male and female, contributing to this project who wouldn't dream of going anywhere near 3RR. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The history of María Sáez de Vernet shows four recent edits by Elisa, three of which appear to be reverts (of two different edits) but the fourth of which was adding content (reverted by the other editors). Violating 3RR means making more than three reverts. Where is the fourth revert that caused the violation? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I counted this, this, this and this; however if you are certain that one of these is invalid, I'm happy to accept that. I would have probably full protected myself, but we are where we are. I don't particularly want to see Elisa blocked, but I can't simply unblock her without getting a huge amount of grief and hassle. I am simply saying it would have been better all round if she hadn't edit warred in the first place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It was three reverts in 20 minutes, which is edit warring behavior, even if it didn't breach 3RR. Elisa was blocked because she made it clear that she did not consider her actions to be edit warring, even if they were, and she all but attacked the editor she was in a dispute with while doing so ([1]). The other editors were not blocked, because they had indicated that they intended to stop or did not appear to be near the number of reverts she was at. Elisa had indicated that she did not see anything wrong with her conduct and if anything, viewed it as being correct. Given the speed of the dispute and the language of the blocking and edit warring policies, a block at this time was in my view needed to prevent further disruption to the project.

Her previous block log and her behavior in the past when challenged on violating policies by editors she didn't like was a factor in setting it to indefinite in part because when blocked was the time that she was most willing to actually talk about things with uninvolved editors. The TPA was revoked because she engaged in a mass ping to continue the content dispute she had just been blocked for edit warring for (and also, to be honest, likely to draw attention to her block rather than make a formal appeal.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on a closer look, it's two reverts not three (the same number of reverts as WCM in the same time frame). The 17:00 edit looks like a revert from the byte count, but is actually another attempt to add new content. It's hard to disagree that it was edit-warring, but the differential treatment of different editors is still troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the content there: she restored prose that WCM had removed, but just placed it elsewhere. The treatment is different because one editor recognized it was edit warring and said they were going to stop, meaning a block would have been in violation of the blocking policy since disruption was unlikely. Elisa said she didn’t view it as edit warring and viewed it as building a complete article meaning a fourth revert in the next few minutes seemed likely (or, just as bad: editing against consensus because no one else wanted to edit war.) If WCM hadn’t signaled the desire to disengage I would have blocked or full protected, but at the time of the block, and in conversation with her afterwards, I got the impression that Elisa would have continued to ignore discussion in the name of content. I hope that makes some sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: If by "one editor recognized it was edit warring and said they were going to stop" you mean WCM's "I'm not going to edit war with you", how is that credible when two minutes later they removed Rolle's content again (in one of the edits you are avoiding counting as a revert)? Or did you have some other later instance when they said they were going to stop in mind? Because I think those were WCM's last edits before the block. Basically it still looks to me like you are applying a double standard here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You're being very disingenuous there, I consolidated an edit I didn't remove all of the content, which is plain from the diff. This kicked off when we had the ludicrous situation of one person edit warring to add the same content twice [2]. I also explained twice that I was in the middle of preparing cites when she reverted [3],[4], yet they persisted with the bad faith accusation [5] that I was not going to cite it. There's examples of bad faith assumptions on the article talk page, your page David, above and elsewhere. You're way of the mark with your accusations of misogyny here and you're neeedlessly raising the temperature of discussions in general. The block resulted from her attitude, despite attempts to reach out in good faith. All you're going to achieve with this attitude is your own block for personal attacks. WCM_email 00:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, you are correct: I do think that Wee Curry Monster should not have made that revert, and if I had seen it, I would have blocked them for 24 hours for edit warring. I did not see it because I was busy checking the block logs and comparing diffs because I wanted to make that this block was justified before I placed it. The last edit I saw in the article history was the edit at 17:01. I didn't get back around to that article because I was trying to explain the block to Elisa on her talk page for the next hour.

If you have a question as to why I would have blocked WCM for 24 hours and why Elisa was blocked indefinitely I'll go ahead and answer that: WCM was last blocked over a decade ago. Elisa has had 3 (now 4) indefinite blocks in the period of roughly 18 months. Her response to virtually any criticism is to blank the message, cast herself as the victim, and refuse to even discuss the underlying behavioral issues that cause editors who are not familiar with her work to run into conflict with her. That is why this is a disruptive editing block and not solely edit warring block: while talk page blanking is allowed, communication with other editors who raise good faith concerns is required. Until such concerns are addressed, I think any unblock would be premature. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for the warning, I hadn't realised that type of editing could be perceived as a revert, since I was actually editing to trim content down and left a significant portion of her edit but I can see how it could be taken that way. One of the reasons I suggested you lift the block was it appeared that she realised I had been right - she had removed her own edit and padded mine out. FYI The content has been re-added again by David Eppstein who has ignored the talk page discussion I started as to how much detail was appropriate. WCM_email

A glance at Talk:María Sáez de Vernet or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet will reveal exactly how constructive WCM's discussion contributions have been. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A glance at how I've been treated by you and your friends will show I've been constructive even when faced with a constant lack of good faith.[6],User talk:David Eppstein#María Sáez de Vernet‎,#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet and [7],[8],[9]. I'm happy for my edits to stand on their own. I would add that Mr Eppstein has also edit warred to remove a {{cn}} tag and exhibiting characteristics of WP:OWN is insisting on his own incorrect version of the lede. 01:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing a tag one time is not edit-warring, nor is disagreeing with you about your insistance that our lead sentence should omit the diary and talk about her husband instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring incorrect material is disruptive and I have not insisted on any particular lead. The only person doing so is you and you're spectacularly wrong in what you've forced into the lede. WCM_email 02:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The only part of the current lead (note that the Wikipedia MOS several years ago agreed to stop calling it a lede) that I had any part in was the description "diarist from South America". I realize that you don't think it's appropriate to use the word "diarist" to describe someone whose main claim to fame is a diary, and instead think they should be described purely in terms of marital connections to someone more famous, but what part of "from South America" do you think is spectacularly incorrect? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm old school, I'll stick with lede [10]. AS you well know I was referring to your previous edits [11] and [12] your fixation on insisting we refer to her as a diarist meant you missed the fact that May Revolution occurred in 1810, the Viceroyalty finished in 1814 and insisting she was Spanish has made you look rather foolish. Next time someone points out you're wrong you might like to listen and ask questions. WCM_email 02:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Past edits are past. I'm not embarrassed to make mistakes and have them corrected. I might be embarrassed to edit-war to keep a mistake in. But in this case, it's not even a mistake, just a part of the story rather than the whole story. The revolution you describe happened long after her birth. Maybe she wasn't Spanish and a diarist at the same time, but she was both. Also I never wrote just "Spanish", but "Spanish colonial", which could even plausibly be used to describe any present resident of a former Spanish colony (such as me, in Southern California), though in most cases it would be far from the first description to come to mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't mind David Eppstein's comment, and I get that blocking a productive editor in one area can be controversial. I think I was fair to Elisa, but I'm far from infallible. I'd prefer not to have a bunch of admins I respect (everyone in this thread, including David) fighting over my actions or about someone else's characterization of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• I am sorry to see that there is a dispute here between two administrators among those I most respect on Wikipedia. It is the wrong place. I am sure that when the block is over, which I expect will happen, the editor concerned will resume her superb editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC).

I too hope very much this can all be sorted out as quickly as possible. It's unfortunate the article María Sáez de Vernet has led to so much controversy. I've spent quite a bit of time this morning, carefully reading through the various talk pages covering the issue, including WCM's comments on on TonyBallioni's talk page about the "constant failure to assume good faith with members of WP:WIR, not to mention the antagonistic misandry that seems to permeate all their discussions. I'm seriously thinking of taking this to WP:ANI." Fortunately, he has been persuaded not to do so. As far as I could see, though, both Elisa and David Eppstein have done their utmost to diminish differences with WCM by making informative editing comments and explaining their actions on the María Sáez de Vernet talk page. It seems to me Elisa should be congratulated on trying to resolve these issues, rather than being blocked and feeling she had to retire.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always had a problem with great content authors who are easily baited meeting with editors who know how to push the right button with them so that the other person gets banned for disagreeing with them. Blocking Elisa indefinitely - this time or the previous times - is absurd and absolutely detrimental to Wikipedia. The editors disagreeing with her have behaved appallingly, and that knowing how to stay just this side of the rules in this way results in this kind of outcome is Wikipedia at its worst. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Content issues aside, there are two concerns I have here. 1) There will always be double standards on Wikipedia, and "rules" are never consistently applied, and we should not try to pretend that they are. 2) We should stop referring block logs as some kind of criminal record. The ultimate goal is to improve the project, and blocking Elisa.rolle indefinitely is not going to improve the project. There was also no good reason to revoke talk page access, especially within seconds that Elisa.rolle made the mass pinging. The very least to do now is to restore the talk page access. Alex Shih (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I will not be restoring TPA, and I would strongly object to any admin doing so. She was behaving disruptivly by canvassing sympathetic users to a content dispute, revoking it was more than justified, and looking at her previous unblock attempts where she created a circus by pinging friends to help with the appeals to the point where she literally plagiarized her last unblock request for a copyright block makes it likely she’d continue pinging sympathetic people until the discussion on the talk page stops being a discussion with her and becomes a conversation with everyone else. In no way does restoring TPA benefit Wikipedia, and she is perfectly able to make UTRS appeals.
    Re: block logs, the reason we look to them is because the blocking policy tells us to when considering block lengths. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni, I am really unwilling to litigate this, so I will just make one additional note that I think needs to be said. ...Literally plagiarized her last unblock request: English is my second language, but I do not believe this is what the definition of the term says? And I also do not believe that we should be talking about implications of copyright violation while grossly misusing such term with serious insinuations. Please re-visit. Alex Shih (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Alex Shih: her unblock request was plagairized. It was presented as her own without attribution. My point being: her use of pings while blocked has not been productive in the past, and she just abused them to carry on a content dispute while blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• her unblock request was plagiarized ... ... ... GMG^talk 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Right, it's early in the morning here and I have mis-intepreted your post as it is currently written. My point still stands that I don't think it is an appropriate use of the term, but like you said that's beyond the main point right now. Mass pinging without cause is disruptive indeed, but this basically pinged every editor that participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet, if I am not mistaken. I don't think it's necessarily disruptive to explain their perspective on the circumstance of the block and ask for clarification from more experienced editors if the ping target does not meet the strictest definition of canvassing. And I am not sure if everyone pinged there can be considered as "friends" that would create a "circus"; I see a lot of these names could help with productive input that would provide a resolution. Alex Shih (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think a dose of common sense is required here: we don't usually mass ping participants of an AfD to a content dispute, especially when it overwhelmingly went one-way. It certainly violates the intent of the canvassing policy if not the letter. It's also important to look at her history: she pings people who are sympathetic to her while blocked to do things for her. She was starting to repeat the pattern and this time was directing people to a content dispute where her behavior had caused her to be blocked: if mass-pinging a bunch of people whom you suspect are likely to agree with you and pointing them to an edit war you were just blocked for isn't the definition of abusing a talk page while blocked, then we should just get rid of the ability to revoke TPA. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If "doing things" means to resolve disputes and improve content, what is wrong with that? We'll have to disagree on our idea toward what a dose of common sense consist of. Alex Shih (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's against policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It really looks to this uninvolved user as if TonyBallioni is a party to the content dispute at this point. His increasingly emotional defences suggest he isn't behaving objectively and can't be a neutral admin with regard to this issue. Numerous issues with this block have been raised by various uninvolved users and the responses to those have been disappointing, to put it lightly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content. I do have an opinion as an uninvolved administrator as to Elisa’s behavior, which is why I blocked, and I am explaining and defending my actions, as required by policy, but I have not once commented on the content and I would never do so. Multiple uninvolved administrators have commented either endorsing the block or my behavior, and her UTRS appeal was declined by an uninvolved admin. Also, while I believe very strongly in admin accountability, which is why I have replied to every response here and on my talk and at Elisa’s talk, I don’t think my replying her further would do much good: I’ve explained the block and justified it. Elisa is able to appeal. Arguing further isn’t going to improve the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It really looks to this relatively uninvolved user as if TonyBallioni is editing according to policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

And to this uninvolved user. I would note, yet more evidence being presented by Alex Shih of his own wholesale unsuitablility for re-election to ArbCom is helpful. Nick (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting for those interested that I've changed Elisa's block to a month and restored her talk page after talking with her via email. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the optimum solution. Indef does not mean forever, and now Elisa.rolle can return to her editing with greater discipline. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

• I think you are being extremely harsh David. This is far from the first time ER has ruffled feathers and you have no evidence that her gender has anything to do with this block. Can we consider that using this talk page as a quasi-forum for rants about the wrongs of the male-dominated Wikipedia establishment (usually by experienced male Wikipedians) is probably not making the atmosphere any less antagonistic? – Joe (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I note that Elisa has now been reblocked indefinitely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice: User:Citation bot now expands select bareurl citations

For example, see [13].

This doesn't work with all bare urls, but it will work with urls to Google Books, arXiv, bibcode, JSTOR, doi, PMID and several other identifiers. If you see such bare urls in an article, you can activate Citation bot here or use the one-click citation expander gadget in your preferences (or from {{Draft}} if you make use of the draft space). The Google Books output in particular will need to be reviewed, as sometimes Google Books links to magazine, rather than books proper. It shouldn't give anything egregiously wrong, but the citation might not have the full details, list a publisher for author, or might need to be converted to {{cite magazine}} or something.

Many thanks to User:AManWithNoPlan for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

2G1P podcast

For those who enjoy podcasts, you can hear me speak about Women in Red on this 2G1P episode of The Daily Dot, which went live Monday morning. As those of you who have done a podcast know, some of what you say during the recording ends up on the cutting-room floor, so splicing changes the context and/or removes information/names you thought were important, but overall, I'm pleased with this episode. Victuallers, I mention you around 28:00, and May Hachem93, I mention you around 40:30. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red in the news

Northeastern University

Another article which mentions Women in Red: "These students are making science easier to understand on Wikipedia, one article at a time". A big thank you to Wiki Education Foundation for supporting the work of the university, professor, and students mentioned in this article. Also, I am proud to say, that I'm a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar here (Northeastern University). Plus a shout out to my wikifriend Jami (Wiki Ed) for letting me know about this one. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a great one. Thanks for all the great work y'all do to compile missing women!! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I love that the article points out how Wikipedia differs from academic writing. This "It is much more difficult to find information about underrepresented people because often the information about them isn't even recorded in the first place", is a jewel! Shows exactly the problems of minorities in general. Even if their achievements are well known or recorded, finding information about the person is obscured, by the lack of sourcing available. Doesn't mean they aren't notable, simply means we cannot document it at this time. Women/gender studies only began as an academic field in the 1970s. We can only hope that as scholarship improves, more and more information about notable people who history texts ignored will be uncovered. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Do you know whether there has been any progress on a more official level of collaboration between Women in Red and the Wiki Education Foundation? I believe you suggested giving the idea some support earlier this year. It looks to me as if it would be a fruitful avenue to explore for all concerned.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't had any further discussions with Wiki Edu in this regard as our paths haven't crossed much at in-person events in the last few months, but they will before the end of the year. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"This 'It is much more difficult to find information about underrepresented people because often the information about them isn't even recorded in the first place', is a jewel! Shows exactly the problems of minorities in general. Even if their achievements are well known or recorded, finding information about the person is obscured, by the lack of sourcing available. Doesn't mean they aren't notable, simply means we cannot document it at this time." This needs to be added to the Afd pages plus a big, bolded, glittery mention of the fact that a lack of sources in English doesn't mean they aren't notable. -Yupik (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Nature

Big thank you to scientists @Jess Wade and Maryam Zaringhalam for their work writing women scientists into Wikipedia; as well as for mentioning Women in Red, @Emily and me in the 14 August Nature article, "Why we’re editing women scientists onto Wikipedia". --Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's great to see they've made it all the way to Nature. Quite an achievement. I'm not too sure how many newcomers would agree that "Editing Wikipedia is easy.." but at least it looks encouraging. Sooner or later, it might be interesting to sound out new editors on the difficulties (if any) they encounter when first starting to edit. On that basis, we could try to introduce some improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the two articles! MauraWen (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Twitter is down!

Out twitter page @wikiwomeninred is down. My silly fault, I tried to add our birth date as 2015 and it blocked the whole thing because we are "not 13 years old". I guess it may take some time to get it back. #wikiwomeninred should work meanwhile as a stop gap. If you can look out for those who miss it then it would be helpful. Victuallers (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! Good luck with that. Jane (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed Victuallers (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes nice to see the tweets coming in again. Jane (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Content and data for action in Africa: A bootcamp for Wikimedians, Community Survey

Hello Wikimedians working in Africa, we want to hear from you! Wikimedia Foundation and the Web Foundation are planning a bootcamp on content and data for continent-wide action. To under help conference organizers understand what the community needs please take a few minutes to fill out our survey

Thank you Anabmap (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Article created for Misa Matsushima, first female fighter pilot in Japan

Misa Matsushima FYI. Considering the history of Tammie Jo Shults, we may need to beef this up to fend off deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Ringrose

Jessica Ringrose has many cleanup tags and has been prodded as overly promotional. It could probably use rescue (I would put more effort into it myself but I'm going to be offline most of the next few days). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The page has been moved out of article space, to Draft:Jessica Ringrose. It looks rescue-able. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Kimberly Yuracko

Is this the place where you ask if someone might be interested in writing an article of an academic on gender and law Kimberly Yuracko, new dean of Northwestern University School of Law [14] [15] Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Timeline of women in science

I see this has been recently created by TheSavannahRoller. It looks to me as if it could be considerably expanded. Any volunteers? (I seem to remember Megalibrarygirl has worked on a number of timelines over the years.)--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to be a pretty good source.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've added a globalize tag, but apart from the inevitable Marie Curie it seems entirely and shamelessly American. Not even Rosalind Franklin! It might be better to just rename it "... in the United States". Not really a great achievement in the cause of increasing WP's diversity. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think expanding this list would be a great group project, maybe via different editors focusing on women from different eras or regions of the world. I'm happy to pitch in. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This was put together by a relatively recent editor. There is obviously room for considerable expansion. I'm please to see it has already started to progress. Let's see what it looks like in a week or two. The list would also benefit from a few images.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve this but two of my recent additions have been deleted by an IP editor on the grounds that medicine and alchemy are not sciences. Both deleted names are included in Women in science. Any opinions or suggestions on how to proceed? Maybe Victuallers?.--Ipigott (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Report from your friend at WP:ITN about Mirka Mora

Please assist in improving this page to meet ITN standards. The article needs improvement in coverage of her career and works. The nomination has stalled and needs help from editors with interest and expertise in art.

I usually have no trouble getting these articles to tip-top shape and posted. Several of the posts about women on ITN recently, I can proudly say, are from my constant monitoring of ITN/C for women or basically anyone that is not a white male (I also help the Lindsay Kemp's of the world). I hope you won't mind if I occasionally ask for help here as I do in this case.

This article (Mirka Mora) has me stumped. It shows all the signs of BIAS. So much detail about her sex life and family but almost nothing about her works. It is so irritating! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary of African Christian Biography

I have a feeling I might have raised this source here before - apologies if I have. It looks to be quite interesting, but paging through it I find I have a few questions about the notability of some of the people listed. Regardless, it might prove to be useful - I've found some information there for a few articles I've worked on. Also, it's very well-organized: a list of women in the dictionary can be found here, if anyone wants to Wikify it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. You continue to come up with useful resources. The biographies are well presented and detailed but as you say, many of the women covered would unfortunately not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The dictionary should also be of interest to Anthere.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Paul Plunkett / Anna Freeman

Anna Freeman is on the WS Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/University teachers. She was born Paul Plunkett and has a Wikipedia article in her birth name. I was going to create a redirect from the Anna Freeman redlink to Paul Plunkett. I believe, however, it may be preferable for someone with the know-how to move the article to the AF redlink and make PP the redirect page. Thoughts? Help?

Correct - and fixed. Now at Anna Freeman. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife: Can you also change the Wikidata entry?--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not so good with Wikidata - someone else will have to do that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Article or not?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Dawn Bohulano Mabalon . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversial issue on Patricia Benoit

For the WIR August initiative, on 13 August 2018, I created an article for the stage actress Patricia Benoit which didn't have a Wikipedia article even after her death (died 6 August 2018). So I tried to this article only 7 days after her death since others didn't notice about it. I mentioned that she was a stage actress, film actress, film director when I created the article. But my claims on the late Patricia Benoit were actually false except for the fact that she was only working as a theatre artist and later found out that there was another American person named Patricia Benoit who actually contributed to Haitian literature, worked as a film actress and went onto become a film director for a film related to Haitian culture. This was evident when a user removed the facts regarding the Haitian lady which I initially added without the knowledge that there are 2 popular personalities with the same name and same nationality. The other issue has also been raised only due to my error which is the use of incorrect image of Haitian Patricia Benoit in the Google search index along with the article information that I created. This is a serious issue and want to rectify the image issue. I apologise for this misinformation which would have read by several viewers but this hasn't been much recognised by Wikipedians compared to Aretha Franklin which heaped rumours and quick development of facts before and after her death.

The below mentioned passage related to Haitian-American actress and filmmaker Patricia Benoit (This was initially added by me due to the misunderstanding and unfortunate instance to me)

Patricia Benoit (director)

In 2012, she was critically acclaimed for her directorial venture on Stones in the Sun and was later screened at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival.

In the 1990s, she transformed into a New York film maker who worked with an Haitian-American novelist Edwidge Danticat and Jonathan Demme, on projects on Haitian art and documentaries about Haïti.

Patricia Benoit directed a short film titled Fern's Heart of Darkness which appeared as one of the ten such short stories combined to produce a television film Subway Stories in 1997. However she rose to prominence as a film director only at the age of 85 where she was critically acclaimed for her directorial venture of Stones in the Sun, a film based on the lives of Haitian people was released in 2012 accumulating positive reviews from the audience.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashibe (talk • contribs) 08:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abishe: I've started a stub at Patricia Benoit (director). I wondered about copying and adapting your text above, with all the appropriate copying acknowledgement, but wasn't sure that would work well for text copied from a talk page so I'll leave it to you to add your info and sources to the new article. I found a source from Sydney Latin Film Festival which has quite an extensive biography for her, so scope there to expand the article. I've added her imdb link, and fixed the broken imdb link on the other PB, and added a hatnote there to point to this one. Over to you now ... or to other interested parties. PamD 08:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks for reminding this thing and I have now expanded the article. Thanks for your help and I would appreciate it. Abishe (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Couple of things about new article / drafts / AFC / citation bot

I know several of you run edit-a-thons, and many of you create articles like others drink water, so this maybe be of interest to you. {{Draft article}}/{{Userspace draft}} have been updated (and {{AFC submission}} too). They are now more visually pleasing, and more user friendly. They also contain several resources and automated tools to make your life easier. To use them, simply copy-paste {{Draft article}} or {{Userspace draft}} at the top of whatever page you are working with.

Find sources

The first thing the templates use is {{Find sources}}

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

which should help you more easily find sources. There's not a whole lot to say here, it's pretty straightforward and explanatory.

Automated tools

The second is {{Automated tools}}

• Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs

The last four links are relatively technical (although not super hard to use once you sit there and give them a try), but the first link should be very easy to use for anyone, and I would suggest mentioning that in edit-a-thons. It's basically a one-click link to save yourself the pain of entering full citations manually. Per the "Help" link given in the template, the idea is that you now simply add

DOI: <ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2222/B22.2}}</ref> or <ref>https://doi.org/10.2222/B22.2</ref>

GoogleBooks: <ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/...}}</ref> or <ref>https://books.google.com/...</ref>

to where you want to add an citation, and the bot will do the magic and expand them to full citations. Yes, this now works on bare URLs! Cheers! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Headbomb:, very helpful! MauraWen (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a proposal to add {{Draft article}} to all drafts btw. This may be of interest to people here too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is really useful, Headbomb. This will be particularly helpful at in-person events where there are always some newbies who are keen on creating a new article that day. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

New editor

There's a new editor, MaryMurphy1, working on articles about women whose papers are held in the collections of Brown University. Unfortunately, it looks like she's copying the text direct from the Brown University Library's webpage...and I'm not sure she has permission for that. I've pinged her with an offer of help, and I've worked on one of the articles some - Patricia Smith Yaeger. But I don't have time right now to do anything involving any of the others. Copyvio issues aside, I'd love to be able to save the articles - is there anyone inclined to have a look? Also maybe to review what I posted to her talkpage? I didn't want to throw too much at her at once.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I managed to do some work on Patricia Smith Yaeger - I think it can be salvaged as is (though the copyvio will need to be invised-out of the history.) Again...no time to look at the others, if anyone would like to. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Women's Autobiography

Another source I discovered...it's in two volumes. A-J is here, K-Z is here. Looks like many of the subjects have articles already, but at least one does not...anyone fancy generating a list, assuming they can find a table of contents? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with Kate Sheppard FA

Hi,

We are in a final big push to try and get Kate Sheppard to Featured Article Status. If anyone has time and is willingly feedback and advice is much appreciated and can be added here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kate_Sheppard/archive1

I have the time to contribute but not the keen eye to spot where change is needed. Thank you! Susan Tol (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If I can find the time, I'll look more closely at it. I'm familiar with the article which has certainly been significantly improved. Certainly looks as if it should soon be an FA.--Ipigott (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Have now added my support.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We made it to FA!!! Just in time for the 125th anniversary of NZ suffrage in September. Thank you very much for your help and everyone else in this group who contributed! Susan Tol (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

October event in Manchester

Hi all. I am trying to help a very confused new user, Maureen Brindle, who received an invitation to this event in Manchester in October. She is pretty much heading for an indefinite block. She doesn't understand how we talk to each other onsite, and is not seeing where people are writing to her, and at the same time complaining that no one is talking with her. She has responded to email and I am emailing with her, but she needs somebody sitting down with her and explaining how to navigate Wikipedia. Also a LOT of guidance as to the policies and guidelines here.

Is anybody here going to that event and could maybe try to help her in whatever way is most appropriate? If you are willing to be introduced via email, I could do that. You can email me at Jytdogwiki at gmail if you like... Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Isarra and good luck with your project extension.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

And thank you! -— Isarra ༆ 03:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Need source to de-PROD Marta Brilej

Noticed that Marta Brilej was PRODed based on the rationale that it is a BLP with no sources. The source of the PROD has been chastised recently on their talk page for abusing the BLPPROD rule. And in this article's case, it doesn't even seem to be a BLP. This woman is a clearly notable Slovene diplomat who was born in 1917, it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) she is still around at the age of 101. And lo, both Wikidata and Slovene Wikipedia say she died 24 June 2016. I de-PRODed it based on all that, not realizing in my haste that Slovene Wikipedia doesn't cite a source.

I'm posting here because after I deprodded the article and fixed up the tagging on it to make it a not-BLP, someone reverted me (but did not notify me) with the excuse that I did not provide a source. Because the sources about this person are not in English, I'm having trouble finding a good source on her death, or frankly anything else about her. Her husband's bio even says, "He is buried at Žale cemetery in Ljubljana alongside his wife Marta Brilej and opposite his lifelong friend, Partisan comrade and diplomat Aleš Bebler." But the only source for this in that article is a search page at the cemetery where you can look up Jože and Marta by hand. Mainly I just need an obit so we can put the DOD back in and de-PROD. (The article needs sources generally, but I figure one thing at a time). @SusunW: any ideas? --Krelnik (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth contacting this Twitter user who says MB is her grandmother? Link Tacyarg (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've cited the Twitter post about her being the first woman in Belgrade to drive, and removed the BLP PROD. That'll at least stop deletion; as for sources, I think I'm pretty much stuck like Krelnik. If someone AfDs it with "no sources" I don't know what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This source says they were married in 1932, which could be wrong (married at 15?) and disagrees with the details you have. StrayBolt (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't access much of this, but this book mentions Marta 3-4 times. It also looks like she is mentioned (or her writing is mentioned) on page 183 of this. Knope7 (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Krelnik I have been offline most of the day doing real world tedium. I can find very little from Mexico, though I have a friend in Serbia I have contacted. I cannot access the book link Knope7 provided, but the other entry clearly says she was arrested in 1942, charged and tried in an Italian military tribunal, and sentenced to 12 years in prison. SusunW (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplication listing new articles at WIR

I just now realized that there is WIR Monthly achievement initiative: September 2018, and the exact listing can be made at WIR Meetup/92. Maybe you've always done it this way, and the one is a catchall for all categories, while the other is more specific. Do you have all this linked to something centralized somewhere? Otherwise, I can't help but think all this duplication will catch up with the project by way of confusion somewhere down the line, if the process is consolidated, reconfigured. if there ever comes some kind of cleanup on this project, it will be twice the effort to do so. Just thinking.— Maile (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Maile66: Thanks for drawing our attention to what you perceive as being a problem. Unlike the focus we try to provide through out monthly editathons, the Monthly Achievement Initiatives are not meetups and are not categorized as such. They are simply intended to encourage editors to list their contributions by including their user names, article classes, etc. I'm not sure what the problem is. You should be able to get a complete view of our activities under the template {{Women in Red}}. In connection with duplication, you can also find more extensive listings of all the new articles on women each month under our Metrics. Please let us know whether you have any specific suggestions for improvements, for example by more detailed categorization.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Any K-pop fans here?

Hi I was poking around some pages in the archive here and stumbled upon some previously counted women articles that have since become redirected to K-pop band pages. I noticed the talkpage of K-pop says "K-pop has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Art" which indicates the level of interest in this subject. This is probably "in spite of" rather than "because of" most Wikipedia editors, since it appears these articles are being shot down for having no reliable sources. I was wondering if maybe Women in Red should sponsor a K-pop event as a way of attracting some younger editors and maybe also giving *us* more information regarding these new "for Wikipedia unreliable, but for K-pop necessary" sources. For many reasons, not least of which lies in the title (K-pop=Korean pop), this may also be a good candidate to combine with a Wikidata project. Thoughts? Jane (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a tentative list here of members of girl bands, and it appears most of these people born after 1985 or so are K-pop bandmembers. I suppose it would probably be a good idea to tag items as being K-pop somehow, maybe through some Korean external identifier? Jane (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe Drmies is familiar with K-pop articles generally, though calling them a "fan" is probably not the right word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah me neither. I can imagine that Wikipedia must seem like a very hostile environment for fans, if we have any at all. Jane (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh there's plenty of K-pop fans. I'm also convinced there are more fan accounts then there are fans, if you catch my drift, and besides that I am convinced that a bunch of those accounts are paid operatives from SM Entertainment and the like. But as my six-year old likes to say, BTS is evil, alternative is life. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I have a niece who is taking Korean lessons because of K-pop, which leads me to conclude that we must be open-minded about this stuff, no matter whether the money involved has become an important chunk of Korean GDP or not. Plus we need more youngsters editing things they really care about, instead of being introduced to Wikipedia in the classroom. Jane (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting a new article reviewed?

I'm contributing to this great project by writing an article on one of the British Poets listed as needing to be "turned blue": Sylvia Kantaris -- she's listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Poets. The draft of the article I've put together is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sylvia_Kantaris . Do I just wait the "more than two months" that it can take for draft articles to be looked at, or does the Women in Red project have some active reviewers who can prioritize reviewing of work in this Project? I added a template for WikiProject: Women in Red at the bottom of the page, in the hope that it might get flagged here. If anyone can review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sylvia_Kantaris faster than the stated two months, given the priority of this project for Wikipedia, I'd be really grateful. I'm not sure if I missed it, but I couldn't find guidelines in the Project on how to get new page submissions included in the project -- maybe that can be flagged up more clearly somewhere? Sorry if it's already there, I did try to find it! MLDH (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 beat me to accepting your draft by about 30 seconds. Well done - that's an excellent first article! The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MLDH: It depends on when somebody gets round to reviewing a draft. Some of them are in poor shape, badly sourced, or blatantly promotional. This one, however, is well written and sourced, and is easy to pass, which I have now done. Thanks for contributing to WiR! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, many thanks! I didn't expect such an instant response!! Thank you so much! MLDH (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

MLDH In answer to the overriding question, we do not recommend submitting drafts to AfC (Articles for Creation). What you did here, posting it to our talk page, will usually capture a fairly quick response, whether you want to have a file reviewed, or are having trouble finding sources. You can also ping someone you know reviews files, but of course, they may or may not be on-line. Welcome aboard! SusunW (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In the same vein, is it possible/appropriate for someone to look at an article that has been in AfC since 30 June? Rookie mistake: Draft:Mariko Bando was created using the Article Wizard before realizing that the wizard submits to AfC. Seemed inappropriate to just delete the submission template and move to mainspace. Fine to leave it there to run its course, but it does fit the "Women currently in academics" theme for September. Thanks in advance for any guidance. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also done! As a general thing - AfC is so backlogged because so many of the submissions are either company spam, dubiously notable people wanting their own articles, or articles that need serious work to avoid being nominated for AfD if accepted. I have no problem reviewing any article on request that doesn't fall into those categories - which most WIR submissions clearly don't - so if your submission is stuck in the epic queue and you want it reviewed, if you post here it'll get done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Many thanks for the help and kind offer. Bakazaka (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Rachael Bland

I've nominated Rachael Bland, who died this morning, as a candidate for In The News. It's only just over the stub limit of 1500 characters currently, can anyone help expand it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, I don't want to add tags to the article, but "She completed the London marathon every year from 2010 until her death" is sourced to a 2012 source (which of course can not make statements about later years), and e.g. for 2016 I don't see her name in the results[16] (not for "Hodges" either)? I have read the "every year" claim in a Cambridge newspaper, but I think it is wrong (and they may well have taken tht bit of info from our article!). Her blog from 6 March 2017 states "I’ve run the London Marathon 3 times.". Fram (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem there is caused by sources being out of date. For now, I think trimming it to "competed in the London Marathon several times" should suffice. Another problem is the tag on "She trained as a broadcast journalist", which I can currently only cite to The Sun. Hopefully with more eyes on the article, we can fix this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the Sun articles from May 2018, they seem to be copyvio's of the enwiki article from before that date (compare our version from March 2017[17], "After training as a broadcast journalist, Bland presented news bulletins on BBC Wiltshire. She then moved[...]" with The Sun[18]: "After training as a broadcast journalist, Rachael presented news bulletins on BBC Wiltshire. She then moved [...]"). It seems that we will have to be extra careful with this one to avoid circular referencing! Of course, perhaps our 2017 article is a copyvio of something even older, but then we should look for that source, not for anything copying either us or that unknown source. Fram (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fram, if you can prove the Sun has ripped of Wikipedia and it leads to damages, I will buy you a pint :-) An early contributor to the article was Trident13 (talk · contribs), who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations - principally on this version. However, there are plenty of people copyediting the article right now, and earwig reports "violation unlikely" so any issues should be transient. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Composing Wikipedia

Hroche83 seems to have run a successful set of editathons on female composers yesterday. I read about the events here and also looked through her latest Tweets. It all seems to have gone off very well.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Looks like they worked on over 100 articles too! SusunW (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

See my talk page for her response.--Ipigott (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hroche83. I read the article, and this multi-city group of editathons regarding female composers is just fantastic. Bravo! Our project, Women in Red, focuses on creating new women's biographies on 3, 4, or 5 different themes each month in a virtual/online environment allowing editors anywhere to participate. Would you like us to notify you when we schedule a Women Composers or Women Musicians event? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I see from AlexNewArtBot that on 2 September a number of drafts were created on female composers. Some of them seem up to standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Others may require additional work. Any volunteers?--Ipigott (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be great to have some help with the drafts! And yes Rosiestep it would be great to know about other events! If I can help out I'd be happy to, rather hooked on it now. I had briefly talked to someone from Women in Red on Twitter when I first started planning this event, but we lost touch after awhile, not sure what happened there exactly. Hroche83 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hroche83: After looking fairly carefully at a number of the drafts created on 2 September, it looks to me as if you and your participants could benefit from our Ten Simple Rules. I see, in particular, that a number of the drafts have already been found unsuitable for inclusion as articles in the mainspace. Some of the others also appear to be borderline cases unless they can be further improved. It must be frustrating for those who worked on them to see their efforts dismissed. One of the main problems seems to be that many of the young composers covered have not been referenced with "mainstream reliable sources which have been edited or curated such as newspapers, journals, books or award citations" and are therefore not considered sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott:Yeah, it was certainly something we talked about during the session in London - I've also noticed a big difference between those who were working with us (where they had help and a bit more community) and those who were joining in remotely. I can certainly send an e-mail around to everyone about this, if you think that'd be helpful? --Hroche83 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hroche83:: I think it might certainly help those who are interested in improving their articles. Unfortunately, in my experience, only a very small proportion continue with Wikipedia after the editathons are over. But you should certainly encourage them to try to keep going. An email from you might work wonders. Many of these young composers certainly deserve pages on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: After the events it did seem like quite a few of the participants had "caught the bug" but I imagine if their pages are removed by Wikipedia, that might be very discouraging. I've sent a message around about this, and have tried to help a few people who have asked for it. At any rate, everyone seems very encouraged to have been noticed by Women in Red and I think feeling like there's a community there is probably really a big help. So thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroche83 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Dede Alpert

Hi, I hope it's ok to bring an existing article here. I've just stumbled across Dede Alpert which is a very stubby stub. There must be more to say about a State senator. I had a quick look for sources but don't think I know enough about US politics to do much. Can anyone else help? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick crack at it and improved it a bit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Motorcycling - Women in Red collab

I started Draft:MotorGrrl with a few sources including The New York Times and Fox Business. I'll be cross-posting here and at WP:WikiProject Motorcycling. Collaborators are welcome! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"Women Scientists Who Made Nuclear Astrophysics"

I spotted a short article, "Women Scientists Who Made Nuclear Astrophysics", on arXiv recently, and thought it might be of interest here. It looks like most of the dozen women it talks about already have articles - the two exceptions are Georgeanne R. Caughlan and Dilhan Ezer Eryurt. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting Financial Times article on Forgotten Women

I just came across Harriet Finch Little's "What redress for the ‘forgotten women’ of history?", FT, 31 August. It contains some interesting info on various attempts to cover more women who deserve to be remembered.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Sometimes I wonder if people really get what we're doing. Nice to see that some actually do, and that we are not alone. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: The link is no longer working. MauraWen (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a subscription site - it probably depends where you are. I can't see it from London. I think they may make it free after a week or so. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the access. Most of the cultural stuff ends up access free.--Ipigott (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Substantial increase in WiR membership

Over the past 12 months, the number of active editors who are members of Women in Red has increased from approximately 90 to over 200. The number of inactive members (those who have not edited for a month or more) has increased from around 75 to some 190. Many of the latter registered in connection with editathons but never became active on Wikipedia. For those interested in statistics, the WHGI stats for 4 September show that 17.75% of biographies on the English version of Wikipedia are about women (i.e. coded human and female on Wikidata). This is up from 16.47% a year ago. It therefore looks as if our new members are making a significant contribution.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

💗 Great!

☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 09:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this news, Ipigott. Great way to start my morning. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks, @Ipigott: for sharing that information. I wonder if Dr Jess Wade speaking about her "One scientist a day Wiki goal and Women in Red" in the news recently has influenced the increasing number of new active editors. Or is it too soon to see any change in active editor numbers? MauraWen (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen:: As far as I can see, of the 80 or so new members since late July, only a handful are specifically interested in women scientists. But I'm sure the project has benefited from Jess Wade's wide coverage in the press. The project has certainly also been helped by the June initiatives of Sadiq Khan, London's mayor, also widely reported.--Ipigott (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Women who see red

FYI, there's a new list at AFD: List of men killed by women. But should that be list of women who killed men...? Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hardly worth considering.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it has been deleted, the issue is moot but I don't see that those two options are alternatives. The first would be a list of people who happen to be both male and notable and were killed by women who may or may not be notable. The second is a list of people who happen to be both female and murderers (or maybe just manslaughterers) who killed man who may or may not be notable. Very different lists. But both seem unlikely to qualify as articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Wikiman"

A very nice article about our prolific editor, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, including mention of Women in Red. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I like to read success stories like this, gets me inspired since we have at least one thing in common. Very soon he will pass GNG sef.HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• blush* It did turn out well, didn't it? :-) I think it's much the best piece I've read that anyone's written about me, really - it gets a bit deeper than the whole "wow, look at the number of edits he's made" that most of them want. Pleasant way to end the week. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting article. We are now beginning to see that there is in fact a real person behind that strange user name. Collaborating with users on Wikipedia provides only fairly superficial insights about who they are. Detailed articles like this are revealing -- and intensify our willingness to work with them. Lots of useful material here to include in an article on Steven Pruitt. He must be at least as notable as many of those he has written about. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow - super nice article! Love the shameless plug for this project, but being September, it's too bad the shameless plug for WLM couldn't be made with a link out to the NRHP stuff. And do I detect work on Wiki Cheese? Cool. Yes someone please, somebody with BLP skills, make an article - we need this! Jane (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations. It's a really nice piece. Nick Number (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao I am swamped with real world stuff for the next few weeks but was so glad to see this. Congrats on a lovely article. By the by, the answer to your previous question is they moved from Midlothian to Mechanicsville. I have no idea where either of those are, but at some point in the future, we may find out :) SusunW (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: Not to hijack things around here, but Mechanicsville I know of - it's a fairly sizeable suburb of Richmond, located to the northeast. Near as I can tell, that's where some of my own earliest ancestors on these shores lived, back in the 1630s or so. :-) Don't know that I've been, myself, but I know the name quite well.

And to all - thanks for the kind words. As I said on Facebook, it's always nice to get recognition for one's work...but it's even nicer when that recognition comes from one's alma mater. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, great article! Its nice to connect people with their contributions. @SusunW: Jumping in to the discussion on Mechanicsville and Midlothian. (I lived in Richmond for 10 years). Midlothian is south of the James River, west of Richmond. Mechanicsville is North of the James River, east of Richmond. Places are important in terms of their location/relationship to the James River. Many historic homes and plantations in the area are along the River ("Rivah"). The smaller farms, less expensive property, and newer homesteads were further away from the River. Nowadays, those small towns and unincorporated areas have become bedroom communities, with people commuting to Richmond for work. Its a beautiful, historic area. MauraWen (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I scratched my head at the above comment, then realised you weren't talking about the Richmond at the end of the District Line, although there is a well-known river nearby and it does have some important residents. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen: Whereabouts did you live, may I ask? My father's a Richmond native, which is how SusunW and I managed to get onto this topic. 'Course, it's changed a lot since he was there...I visited a few months ago, and had a sushi dinner with a friend in Shockoe Bottom. I don't know what surprised Dad more: that I was admitting to eating sushi, or that I was admitting to walking around unmolested in Shockoe Bottom in the late afternoon.

@Ritchie333: You know us colonials...we tend to forget, sometimes, that there are things we borrowed from the motherland... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:I love talking about Richmond. It was fun living there. My children were small at the time. The youngest was born there, a native Richmonder. I still teasingly tell him his real name (on his birth certificate) is Beauregard, not Matthew. I think I am the only one in the family that finds that funny. :)

We lived in Henrico County in the suburbs, west of the Richmond and north of James river. Living there in the eighties and early nineties was taking a step back in time 20 years, especially after moving from California. It was an ideal place for kids: they were safe wandering the neighborhoods and woods, climbing trees and building forts. and so much wildlife at the time. We used to explore the backroads in the area and would venture as far north as Washington DC to go to the Smithsonian and other cool places, like the The Torpedo Factory. Colonial Williamsburg to the east and Monticello to the west, civil war sites all over the place--great places for kids (and their parents) to wander around and enjoy American history close up. The interesting thing I noticed about Richmonders (U.S. Richmonders) was that the FFV's (First families of Virginia)—the people who lived in the area the longest, had an interesting accent that (to me) appeared to be a cross between British and Canadian. We finally moved back to the west coast, because it was a bit too backward. Glad to hear that you got to enjoy Sushi, unmolested in Shockhoe Bottom! I bet Richmond looks completely different now and is has caught up with the times. I bet your dad has some very interesting stories about living in Richmond. Its an interesting place. MauraWen (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

{I realize this is going rather off-topic, so if anyone wants to smack us back to the matter at hand please feel free. :-) )

I know Henrico County well...although in my father's time it was Hen-REK-kuh county rather than Hen-RYE-co. (I have since adopted this pronunciation as my own.) Daddy was born in Church Hill, if I recall correctly, and lived up there until the family moved; he grew up all over western Virginia, and never lived in Richmond again, although he visited frequently as that's where my grandmother's family lived. He had an accent such as you describe, when he was small; but it gradually disappeared as he spent more time around people in the western part of the state.

Talking of which, the Richmond accent is fascinating: there's a bit about it here. Whenever I'm in Tidewater (and I spent some time out there a couple of months ago) I always tell my friends to pay attention to the accent. (Although I have at least one friend who claims the Richmond and Tidewater accents are a bit different.) It's dying out as more out-of-staters move in and as mass media starts to kill the linguistic differences. You still hear it most pronouncedly in eastern Maryland and in portions of tidewater Virginia. And Tangier Island, but that's an extreme case unto itself.

As you can imagine, Colonial Williamsburg is very special to me. W&M students had free rein there - our student ID allowed us a pass into any buildings we wanted, although I didn't take as much advantage of that as I should've (does one ever, though?). I do remember Homecoming one year, though - the parade always goes down Duke of Gloucester Street, and so they'd closed off the historic area for the morning. The reenactors were lining the street along with other visitors, in costume, and I remember seeing some of them waving green and gold beads. And I remember thinking, for once we're the attraction and they're the tourists, and how wonderful that was. Oh...and I took a class in the Wren Building, because of course you do.

Wonderful place. God, it was a privilege to be there. Though I'm not sure I'd be able to get in nowadays. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject AfroCine "Months of African Cinema" Contest

Just thought I'd spread the news: WikiProject AfroCine is organizing an article creation contest for the months of October and November 2018. They're aiming to "create new articles on African cinema (filmmakers, actors, history, films, etc) on Wikipedia in any language (including through translation)". Sounds like a good opportunity for WiR members to work on articles about African women in film. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I found this blog: African Women in Cinema. Might be a good starting point for some resources, for those who are interested. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I plan to be dedicated to the Afrocine project in the month of October/November. It will be great if some of the topic of interest during that period can be centered around African cinema, but I can understand if that is not possible considering the short time and so many other factors that must be considered. I was just considering the prospect of using one bullet to hit multiple targets. And thanks for the links SAdN, I'll go through it next month. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"""@HandsomeBoy: Any time - hope it proves to be of use. I haven't looked at it too closely, since film isn't my thing, really. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you HandsomeBoy for bringing this here. I was hoping to contact Rosiestep this week to see ways through which gender-gaps can also be incorporated into the Months of African Cinema contest. I am sure there are lots of female filmmakers and actors in Africa without articles. Perhaps a recognition can be given to user that creates the highest number of female biographies? Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything this week due to a keyboard problem with my laptop....but I'm back now. cc Ser Amantio di Nicolao.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Alanna the Brave, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, HandsomeBoy, and Jamie Tubers: This is a good reminder that not everyone is aware where Women in Red plans its events; it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas! Pick the month (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#October) where you'd like to suggest an event, and give it your elevator pitch. If you have links to redlists to support the event, add them; if you don't, ask our Librarian in Residence (Megalibrarygirl) for assistance. If there's a mainpage for the event somewhere else, e.g. on Meta, add it. Also, ping specific Women in Red members to the the conversation if you wish as not everyone keeps an eye on our Ideas page. Thanks for helping to plan this and other events; we could use more hands with that on a regular basis. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine Blasey Ford

The new article Christine Blasey Ford is a complete disaster; some members of this project may be interested in improving it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Freddie Oversteegen

Freddie Oversteegen, Dutch resistance fighter, is an newly created by the excellent Enwebb. I added some sources, but perhaps there are more out there to be found by the excellent team here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Promoting our work

I personally don't do social media. But on a article totally unrelated to this project, the views jumped to 240,000 in one day because of a post at Reddit, Message from my talk page. Maybe this project might want to add Reddit to "Promote our work" on Meetups. Not everybody is writing about a national hero, but those Reddit results eclipse any that have ever happened in the history of that article. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the spike, Maile66. This is important. I don't do Reddit so I'm not sure how to "promote our work" on that site. Hoping that others who are familiar with it pop over here and offer insight. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A lot of page views, it seems to me, have come in the past from Reddit's "Today I Learned" subforum, though it's been ages since I kept up with the most-viewed pages count. We would probably have our best luck looking there. Trouble is, I a.) spend very little time at Reddit, and b.) have no desire to change that. So I don't know, for one thing, what the forum's etiquette might entail (i.e., how welcoming are they to posts from new members, for instance.) If someone's willing to investigate, and maybe develop a profile to post things there, I see no reason why the rest of us might not make some suggestions for articles to feature. It could be an interesting experiment. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)