I've done what I can with her for now. I think it is very clear she wasn't the judge's daughter. If he ever had a daughter named Mary, she wasn't named in his will and that indicates to me that she was dead, i.e. at 10-12 years old when he died in 1823, it isn't likely he had disinherited her. Besides which the judge lived in eastern Connecticut. The doctor, on the other hand, had a daughter Mary, who was christened Mary Amelia, and who was clearly alive in 1833, when the notable book was first published. I am frustrated about the lack of info on her schooling, but I have written to the Farmington Historical Society, because as far as I can tell, the family lived in that place from 1817 to 1830ish, which is when she would have been in school. Anyway, I can always add any info, if they respond. Would you be willing to give it a copyedit? No worries if you don't have time or interest. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll look at it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Great article. Not much copy editing needed. Good to see you've sorted out the family relationships.--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. It was tough, especially because so many later authors had it wrong, but once I found the will for the judge with no daughter named Mary, and the marriage license that said point blank that the Mary who married Henry was the doctor's daughter, I was pretty sure. Then looking at where they lived, the judge's family in the east and the doctor's in the west clinched it for me. Most of the genealogies I found listed Mary and Henry as life-long inhabitants of Connecticut, but the actual records show they never left the NYC area after marriage. Finding both of their obits was a plus, as neither died in Connecticut, which was what most sources said. It was pretty fun to sort it out. SusunW (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
With all the research you carry out, we're getting to the stage where Wikipedia is becoming a more reliable source than anything else. Amazing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
That made me smile. High praise coming from you. I know we have rules that secondary sourcing is best, but for historical people, you truly cannot just accept what secondary and tertiary sources say. My training was to always go back to the first primary source and confirm published accounts. One of the many, many reasons I prefer to work on dead people. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. At least 9 out of 10 of my women's biographies are about people who are no longer living although I might soon be covering a few living Scandinavian comedians. Given Jumbo's slogan that Wikipedia has no rules, you might like to look at Recent research in this month's Signpost. To me, it seems a pity that as the years go by we are becoming more and more entrenched in our unreasonable "rules", including the overriding necessity to avoid primary sources. But you manage to come by without impunity, often using notes to justify your analysis. I think many of us could benefit from your experience.--Ipigott (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree that the rules are entrenched and somehow "sacred". They are often totally weird and totally against academic training, but try as I might, I have never been able to budge the gatekeepers off of the premise that the best sources for un- and under-represented groups come from inside those communities. Academics spent hundreds of years ignoring specific groups of people, thus sources about those groups are unlikely to be found in academic journals and the like. Rather than evaluating source articles based upon who wrote it and their reputation, there is a huge tendency to evaluate the journal or the publisher or the fact that it is a primary source, rather than the creator of the info. And don't get me started on the whole premise that government documents are unreliable because they are primary and cannot be identified with certainty. Anytime one writes, due diligence is required to make sure the source is about the subject and not someone else with the same name. Why would that be any different for a primary source versus a secondary one? Due diligence is not original research, it is simply evaluating the context to ensure one is drawing from a source written about that subject. Makes me want to pull my hair out, but I try really had to follow good research practices and write explanations in notes. I've been accused of writing notes that were "too long", but rather that than presenting a muddled mess. I get that it is hard to write rules when anyone can edit, but though I have tried numerous times to discuss actual evidentiary processes, I have always been met by "that's too complicated/most people won't understand", in other words, we do it the way we do it and aren't interested in changing. (Steps off of soapbox.) SusunW (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ian and Susun, I was just in the neighborhood reading and thought I would chime in. One of my biggest issue with Wikipedia during the time I was or have been an editor is the fact that consensus seemingly overrules the "rules" as if a bunch of editors getting together to say an article either belongs or doesn't belong should supersede the "rules'. And then one looks at the "rules" and figures out that they are just so vaguely written as to allow such consensus to form either way and it really depends on how the argument is being made, who or how many are listening and which side they choose and who or what the closer feels carries more weight in the moment. The same could be said for reviewers. So we follow the "rules", unless consensus says different and then we ignore the "rules". And it potentially changes from article to article. Some "rules" are firm and they almost always lead to more confusion. Some "rules" are directly contradicted by other rules which leads to confusion. No one cares about evidentiary processes anymore just like they don't actually do any research in depth any more. We have these preconceived notions and always side with those notions by default before discussion even begins. Why would a "secondary" media source that openly states its bias and agenda and will DO ANYTHING to forward that agenda be treated as more reliable than a dispassionate and uninvolved neutral government document, even if it is considered "primary"? It continues to blow my mind how this project continues to define what is reliable and what is not. --ARoseWolf 17:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Well you have at least one supporter on all this and your star GA performance should reinforce your approach. But enough on this here. We have more work to do.--Ipigott (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi I would like to create an article for my friend Sam, also known as “DeeJay UpgradeDNB official”.
He is a drum and bass musician and producer. Has worked extensively in the games industry and drives 2 cars I believe.
How do I go about doing this? I would also be interested in being the editor for this page as I am able to add his achievements in his career.
Thanks. --Kontaktdubs (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Kontaktdubs, and welcome to Wikipedia. It is not a good idea to create an article about a friend as we rely heavily on a neutral approach. If you are more generally interested in editing, you should look at some of the links I have posted on your talk page. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott, I've used a depreciated source here. Wanted to have your opinion on this. Is it fine to use such a source, as an external link on a BLP. Thanks. Ahated (talk!) 18:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Ahatd: The source looks OK to me but for living people you should include at least three secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you. Ahated (talk!) 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
On 8 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Avelina Carrera, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Avelina Carrera(pictured) made her debut at the Liceu in Barcelona in 1889, stepping in as Elsa in Wagner's Lohengrin, and created the role of Maddalena in Giordano's Andrea Chénier at La Scala? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Avelina Carrera. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Avelina Carrera), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
I really do appreciate all the time and trouble you have taken over all of them. The process was in fact initiated by Adam Cuerden who significantly improved several of the accompanying images. I'm busy with other things at the moment but might well bother you again when I next turn back to women in music. Thank you so much for all your assistance and guidance.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, - I liked to help for interest in the topic, and I learned a lot, - had no idea of Lyon a bit of a French Bayreuth, for example. - New pics and thoughts on 13 August --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ipigott,
I hope you are well. I know it is a long time since you wished me happy editing ...since then I have done about 4 articles as I am a slow worker! But I have been working on another biography page. It is at User: Balance person/The Pinwill Sisters. I wonder if you or someone else from the Women in red project group might take a look and see if it is okay? The Pinwill Sisters have never been 'women in red' but they were pretty fantastic so I think they should be in Wikipedia. If the page is accepted, I will work on figuring out how to add some photos of their amazing work to the article. Balance person (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balance person (talk • contribs)
Balance person: Thanks for keeping in touch. Rather busy at the moment but I'll take a look tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
See I'm still late with this but it's been a very hot day here in Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Balance person: This is a carefully prepared informative article which certainly comes fully within the remit of Women in Red, tracing not only the lives of the sisters but also the historical context. Once you have added illustrations, I recommend you move it to article space yourself, adding the necessary categories. You can do this under the "More" button at the top of the page, just to the left of the "Search Wikipedia" box. Please let me know if you need further assistance. (I see there is at least one direct link to an external source within the article itself. If important, this should be included in the form of a reference.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much and sorry I caught you at a busy time. I hope you manage to stay cool in Denmark. I will do as you suggest and get back to you if I hit problems. Thanks again ! Balance person (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Balance person: As we're close to the sea, the heat's not too bad. One last suggestion before you move the article to mainspace: change the title to Pinwill sisters without the def art and with lower-case S for sisters (cf Gabor sisters).--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I will now learn about adding pix, adding categories, changing the title, direct links to outside sources changed to references, and moving articles to mainspace. It may take a while. I like learning though! Thanks as always for your courtesy and help Balance person (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Balance person: No rush. Just let me know if you run into any difficulties or need advice. It's not easy to cope with all the editing features on Wikipedia but I'm glad to see you're a keen learner.--Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I have changed the title as you suggested, may possibly have sorted out the external link thing. If you are too busy, please do say and I will ask at the tea house...but I have read reams now about categorisation and have tried to put the chosen categories at the bottom of the Pinwill sisters page but they do not appear in a box. I thought square brackets would do it but...? Balance person (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The categories can't be activated until the article is in mainspace. I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Balance person: The article's now in mainspace. I've added appropriate categories, linked to a couple of lists, included redirects for the three sisters, and added an entry on Wikidata. Thanks once again for putting together this interesting article.--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow it looks great! Thank so much for all you have done to make it acceptable for main space. A beginner can read pages and pages of advice and guidance and still not know the simplest things, like the activation of the categories etc. Ha HA! I will write that down ready for next time! Thank you again.Balance person (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
And I have just had the cheek to self nominate the article for DYK ! Balance person (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Balance person: The way to add categories in drafts is with a colon, e.g. Category:1870s births (see edit version). That prevents the draft being mentioned in the corresponding list. The category can be activated by removing the colon when the article is moved to mainspace. I've now also provided links from the Pinwill sisters in other articles. To help with the DYK, I've included a picture. Perhaps you could refer to the rood screen in the article, drawing on this which I've now included in your reference.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation about the category colons. I understand now. I also understand that it is important to do links TO as well as links FROM an article. I hadn't realised that. I had looked in Commons and didn't find a photo so that is great that you DID find one! I had just contacted an expert on the sisters to see if she had any photos but I think she may be a bit too busy to upload. What a wonderful place for co-operation the wikipedia community proves to be! Balance person (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Balance person: I've already uploaded and included a family photo showing all the sisters. I think that should do for the time being but if you want any more, just let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks.. although it's a bit sad not to see the Mum who started it all in the photo! But that is plenty. Thank you very much for the additions. I will leave you in peace now for a while! Balance person (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I've asked George to work on photos, and ARoseWolf to look it over (I think she might even know how to write the name in Cherokee), but if you have time or interest, could you give this one a copyedit? If not, no worries. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll certainly look through it carefully tomorrow. Always happy to help out with bios of indigenous women.--Ipigott (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: Very little to do on this but I do have a couple of queries. I see that "native" is widely capitalized but not in "native songs". Is this intentional? At the end of "Classical music", you say "... there was little chance of her singing opera in the United States". But she had performed in opera earlier. Perhaps it should be rephrased.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Good catches, it should have been capitalized. She never performed a full opera, only pieces from them, so I'll fix that. Really appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW, I figured I'd just write this here since you mentioned it. Writing her name in Cherokee would be difficult given the fact that there are so many possibilities. Sequoya created a written language for one that was spoken for hundreds if not thousands of years before it and so by then many words were shortened much like what we see today with other languages. Common tongue I guess is a good way to refer to it. However, if you are to take her name as it sounds, phonetically seeing as Cherokee is a sound/syllable based language it could be something like A-ta-li (ᎠᏔᎵ) U-n'-ka-lu-n'-t' (ᎤᏂᎧᎷᏂᏘ) but that's just one of many options, if at all. Unless a source gives the way she pronounced it or gives the phonetic spelling then it might be best to not include it. The Cherokee language is very hard to master as an adult. I hope to get back into it very soon. --ARoseWolf 13:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Requesting feedback on draft article - continuededit
Hello Ipigott: I noticed that you have an interest in articles about women in business, so I thought you might be willing to take a look at a draft I’ve written about a woman-owned business. It has been declined twice based on tone, but no one has openly denied notability. There are articles on other companies that are directly analogous, such as reverb.com, so I believe notability isn’t an issue.
Any feedback you could give would be greatly appreciated. I’ve recently made major edits, but want a bit of feedback before I kick it back into AfC a third time. Thanks for your help! SBCornelius (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, SBCornelius. I seem increasingly to be a favourite among paid editors! I agree with the reviewer that the article reads like an advertisement for the company. (See Wikipedia:Advertising.) For it to be acceptable, it needs to be seriously toned down and should include more information on some of the difficulties experienced by the company. See for example this review which highlights the company's lack of support on social media. You could also draw on the Knoji review. It would also be useful to include a section on Competitors (as in the article on Etsy). I would be happy to take a new look at the article once the presentation is more in line with descriptions of similar companies. In this connection, see Category:Online marketplaces of the United States.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@IpigottThank you for the quick and extremely helpful response. I'll be sure to let you know once I've reworked it based on the resources you provided. Thanks again! SBCornelius (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott I've done some significant rewriting with your feedback in mind. However, I could use a little clarification on what you intended about "lack of support on social media"? Are you referencing the size of the social media audience on various platforms, or are you talking about a lack of social media use to provide customer support and interactions? Thanks again for your help, and if you could clarify this point a bit I'll wrap up the rewrite soon. 19:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC) SBCornelius (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
SBCornelius: I was simply referring to the information in the links I gave you.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott Hello again, and I'm dropping our previous exchange here for context. I hope that's okay. I've made additional edits to the draft and included the information that you requested. I also went through the list at Category:Online marketplaces of the United States and tried to match the existing, and putatively acceptable, tone and content areas found in the most comparable articles. Please let me know what you think and thanks again for all of the feedback. The articles that seemed most analogous to me were:
SBCornelius: Let me know when you've added appropriate categories (preceded by a colon to prevent activation) and I'll probably be able to move it to article space.--Ipigott (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott Thanks and I've now added categories. I tried to keep it simple and not overdo it. Let me know if you think anything else is needed. Thanks again. SBCornelius (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
For over 360 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, MPGuy2824. Nearly all of these have been in connection with articles about women and their works. I review additions almost every day. If there are problems, I try to deal with them myself.--Ipigott (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Just fyi, that article about Philomena Muinzer took a lot of work and digging for information, relative to the size of the article! I've thought this before, that this is a weak point in the ascribing classes - some topics just don't have as much information available as others. I can't see that one growing much, if at all, in the foreseeable future, owing to lack of available information, and relative notability. (Not having a go at you, just airing an opinion I've formed over the years!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Laterthanyouthink, and thank you for contacting me on this. I regularly review articles, especially those about women and agree that our classes do not always reflect the amount of effort behind an article. Nevertheless, the lower classes generally show the status an article has reached in the hope that it will be further improved. I am always particularly happy when I am able to substitute higher ratings as an article evolves. The problem with Philomena Muinzer is that at present the biography consists of only 140 words of running text. To reach Start Class, articles should generally have 250 words of running text although in some cases, for example for people of historical interest, they can be shorter. I should also point out that tools such as ORES and Rater frequently give higher assessments as they take account of all the text in an article and examine the number of references. By "running text", we mean the descriptive part of the article consisting of full sentences but excluding titles, direct quotations, indented lists, notes, captions, etc. In the case of PM, the article could be improved if you were to convert the list of her works into running text, if possible adding information on how well each item was received by the critics or by theatre audiences. Some of the material in the article on Memories of the Irish-Israeli War could possibly also be included in the biography. I have found a number of interesting links by making a Google search on PM and specifying Books, as you can see from these search results. I hope you will be able to make improvements to the article on this basis. You may also be able to find some useful guidance on Primer for creating women's biographies from our WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve coverage of women and their works. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that is useful information, both about the grading process and the heads-up about Google books search - thanks for that, Ipigott. I will put it on my list to get back to that article and add a bit more soon. I keep meaning to have a closer look at the Women in Red project as I do sometimes create biographies for women, but I also work across such a wide range of other topics that are also lacking that it's hard to keep up with everything! Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink: That's good news. I've been looking back over your past articles and re-rating several of them. You will see from here you now have quite a few in B Class, a couple of which are about women. It would be great to have you as a member of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink: Now I've been through the whole list, I can see you have written detailed biographies of several women. I realize many of your articles have been enhanced by other editors but a tally of 29 Bs, 77 Cs, 93 Starts and 6 Lists is pretty impressive. Only 36 Stubs out of 378 new articles is not too bad either. If used properly, our rating system can really show how things progress. The problem is that so few editors take a real interest in assessment.--Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott, thanks for the encouraging words and for re-rating my articles. I quite often get sidetracked into improving existing articles as I am creating a new one (or vice versa!), but I suppose it all helps. I'll try to get back to some of those stubs sometime as well. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink: I wouldn't bother too much about the stubs. If they are interesting, they'll no doubt attract other editors. I think it would be more useful to devote some of your editing time to writing articles about women. If you join us on Women in Red you'll learn more about our priorities and will be able to take part in our discussions and planning. We certainly need editors like you who have wide interests and substantial experience. Think about it!--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, sure, I will have a look when the time is right. :-) Having just spent way too long getting bogged down in obscure bits of Russian theatre history trying to track variant names (another sidetrack!), I still have quite a few bits and pieces to tidy, and various other small local things to strike off my list. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
p.s. I haven't got around to officially joining the project yet, I have finished creating an article for someone who's been a woman in red for a long time - Carole Johnson (dancer). (It has been assessed as C, but that was before I did quite a lot of work on it, so it might be ready for reassessment.) Also upgraded Eleo Pomare (clearly bigger than a stub now!) and added a bit to Elizabeth Dalman, in case you want to have a look at them. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink: Really well presented article. Now B class, as is Eleo Pomare. It would be great to have you as a member of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! (As you can see, both articles produced a few more redlinked names, some of whom are probably also worthy of an article, but I had to stop somewhere!). I will have a look when I get to the end of the current round... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
These are not women, but having been drawn into sorting a couple of things out last night and this morning, it struck me that Lin Onus and his father Bill Onus are better than stub and start by now, in case you want to have a look. (Still far from perfect or expansive, but better than basic, at least!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your additional work on these and a few others. I'm pleased to see that as a result of my interest in your articles, you've been achieving significant improvements. I've reassessed a few more but there's nothing to stop you rating your own articles. I would suggest that whenever a new article reaches more than 250 words of running text, you at least rate it as Start.--Ipigott (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again. Is there an easy way of counting the words in this way (or any way?) - I've never actually investigated. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink: You can get detailed information on articles, including word count, with Xtools article info. See for example the stats on Elizabeth Cameron Dalman. The number of words in running text is listed as "Words" under "Prose". You can find more background at Wikipedia:Article size which includes instructions for installing the Prosesize gadget if you want to keep a constant check on the articles you are expanding. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This one took a lot of time because of all of the errors in 20th century interpretations which scholars have unraveled. I get that there are a whole lot of notes, but I felt that it would be confusing to the average reader to include them in the body text. If you have time to look it over, I'd greatly appreciate it. If you aren't interested or don't have time, no worries. SusunW (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: Done. Certainly not easy to understand all the legal complexities. I see you refer to "femme sole" rather than "feme sole". Perhaps this is the spelling used in the material you studied. Nevertheless, I believe "feme sole" is in more general use (see Britannica). I also see one of your sources refers to "feme sole".--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Really appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: It's interesting to learn more and more about aspects of American history I was never taught at school or never heard about during my five years in Canada. It was completely new to me, for example, that Native Americans had their own slaves. These individual biographies cast new light on developments but I wonder if there's not a case for providing overviews or timelines of important developments, perhaps specifically in relation to the indigenous populations. Maybe Megalibrarygirl would be interested in this or could at least add items to the wonderful state-based timelines she has already been developing. Hope I'm not complicating an interesting evolving picture...--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It's complicated. I am unsure of the status for all 500+ tribes in the US, but each of the Five Civilized Tribes allowed enslavement. When the civil war ended, their slaves (with the exception of the Chickasaw) were granted membership in the tribes and were known as Freedmen. They were enumerated on a special separate section of the Dawes Rolls known as the Freedmen Rolls and were entitled to the benefits of tribal membership. From 1983 to 2017, the Cherokee barred Freedmen enrollments, claiming that Freedmen weren't allowed to be Cherokee tribal members. The tribe lost their case in 2017, when it was confirmed that an 1866 Treaty had granted the Freemen tribal citizenship. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: Can we read about any of this on Wikipedia?--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for these links. I am slowly beginning to fill a gap in my understanding of slavery in the Americas.--Ipigott (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will ever understand it to be honest. But, it is woven into every aspect of life in the Americas (as well as Africa, and Asia) just in different forms: Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and British — which then morphed after abolition into slavery by other names sharecropping and indenture schemes, not to mention Jim Crow laws and Apartheid, which existed into the twentieth century. Yet another legacy of colonization. I think as historians like David Olusoga work through Europe's Black history, they are uncovering more and more ways it shaped Britain as well. (The same would likely be true if one looked for it in other European slave-driven economies, but I am unaware of studies if they exist.) The major difference I see, other than that giant unfathomable compensation in Britain, is that the Europeans didn't really "see" slavery, since the slaves were mostly on their absentee estates in the Americas, in Africa, and in Asia, so it was an abstract concept.
As for Betsy's children, Susan's slave ownership continued to cause issues. Yesterday, when searching to see if they ended up in Oklahoma, I uncovered images 115-116 which basically says her husband was killed by his own father, and her son in trying to save the husband (his dad) killed his own grandfather, over slaves. I have no words for man's inhumanity to other men. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
It nevertheless seems to me to be a step in the right direction to see increasing criticism of former "heroes" who gained their fortunes from slavery. But I am in no position to philosophize on such matters.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. People are flawed. Every single person is capable of both good and evil and history should record that, rather than "prettying up" the past, IMO. SusunW (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm FormalDude. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Dawn Dickson, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thanks for contacting me on this, FormalDude. You may be right that this the editor behind this article has been receiving payment but from previous responses this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore, it seems to me that given the large number of sources, some quite rich in information, that the article should not be subject to PROD. I would also remind you of the recent discussions of PROD under the Lugnuts case which was accompanied by a call for more care in this connection. I see that as a result of your tagging, the article is now subject to a PROD by Praxidicae--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I did not prod it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Praxidicae: Thanks for your rapid response but it's up for speedy deletion on User talk:Christinagirgis. Maybe this occurred accidentally but it's signed by you.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
That's not....how any of this works. I tagged it G11, which is not a prod. As an editor of your tenure, you should absolutely understand this and also be able to look at the history, which you can very easily see what happened, not to mention that it was never prodded. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone reading that Ipigott changed their comment well after I responded...Given that you also improperly changed your comment well after the fact, I'll also note, I never denied tagging it G11 and I still think it's spam but it's not currently up for speedy deletion despite your claims. Discospinster declined it several hours ago. This isn't rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Praxidicae, FormalDude, Discospinster: This is all far too complex for me and I don't normally consider a few hours to be a huge amount of time when working on new contributions. When I first reviewed the page, I was simply responding to a call for page reviewers to help with the huge existing backlog. Thank you for responding to my concerns and informing me of my lack of competence in this connection. I nevertheless think that more careful concern should be given to unreviewing as it appears it can have unexpectedly drastic consequences. We now have to see how we can improve Dawn Dickson up to an acceptable standard.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
It is very far from an acceptable standard and is still a raging advertisement that is far from neutral and I'm still very concerned about your abilities as a page reviewer when you are unable to recognize the difference between prod, speedy deletion and whether something is currently up for deletion under either criteria. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Praxidicae (wonderful user name) for expressing your concerns about my abilities and your opinion that the article is a "raging advertisement". I'm pleased to see we have experts like you to steer the ship. It may nevertheless be useful to show a bit more understanding towards recent editors who are trying to contribute articles to Wikipedia. Their enthusiasm can sometimes be misinterpreted.--Ipigott (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The editor in question is a blocked spammer who was paid to create said article, without disclosure, against Wikimedia's terms of use. I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt of being "too enthusiastic" but your sarcasm is well noted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, I was not the one who tagged the article. It is concerning that you're not able to identify this from the page history. ––FormalDudetalk 16:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
FormalDude: Quite a string of misdemeanors. I should also apologize for responding to your message here rather than on your talk page. I've now looked more carefully at the article's talk page and see that it actually went through quite a series of tagging and detagging. I've also noticed the originator's good faith in attempting to respond to the tags. I'll take a closer look at the article itself today as my own research into Dawn Dawson revealed substantial coverage over a number of years.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eunice Newton Foote, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote to climate change research were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose research in genetics were also obscured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eunice Newton Foote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eunice Newton Foote), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Wagner Reed, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote to climate change research were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose research in genetics were also obscured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eunice Newton Foote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth Wagner Reed), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Hi...I would like to correct one piece of information, like on the same page birthdate of a living person is different. --Omi2social (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
For over 360 article reviews during 2020. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply (with a ping) to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ipigott! I saw you were a part of WikiProject/Women in Business, and am looking for help. I edited and removed a paid editing banner from Fawn Weaver in 2021, but it appears the flag was placed back. I don't believe there is anything wrong with the page copy after a second review - would you be able to review the page, as well, as it appears the banner is no longer relevant?
For the record, I do not have a conflict of interest with Fawn, beyond seeing her in a LinkedIn article last year and taking interest in her work in the POC community. Thanks for your help! :) Jerr1966 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Jerr1966. This is a rather sensitive matter as the editor suspected of being paid is Mrskweaver01 who was notified in October 2017 but did not respond. In March 2018, an editor calling himself Mrskweaver added further content and was notified by Jooojay. As there was no response, Mrskweaverd was blocked from further editing and the addition was removed in March 2018. Further edits by Marvistak17 and Marvistamom in November and December 2017 were immediately removed. The tag on Fawn Weaver was added by MarioGom in September 2021. Nevertheless, given that the article has been greatly expanded and that the original edit by Mrskweaver01 now represents only about 20% of the content, MarioGom might consider removing the tag.--Ipigott (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
AICross97 was part of a large UPE sockfarm, and if I recall correctly, 93.177.117.92 was also the same UPE using a proxy after they were blocked. 75.39.103.150 probably was them too, but I'm not 100% sure. Either way, as far as I can tell, COI and UPE contributions are still a major part of the article. Anyway, if any experienced editor considers that the content is ok, feel free to remove the tag. MarioGom (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
MarioGom: Thanks for your rapid response. I had not realized so many other paid editors were involved. Probably better to maintain the tag until we have time to look into the matter further.--Ipigott (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
MarioGom and Ipigott: Thank you both for taking some time to review the page history with me - I understand now why the tag was placed back on the page in September, and agree the page needs a more in-depth review before the tag can be removed. I will take a swing at a more comprehensive review, especially those IP edits in 2021, and will update this discussion with any findings. Jerr1966 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
For over 360 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I have a personal connection to Tamara Gustavson, and have requested a few updates to her stub article (I’ve declared my conflict-of-interest on the Talk page Talk:Tamara Gustavson#Requested Edit Review. I saw you’re a member of WikiProject Women in Business - are you available to review the requests? Thanks.Wiki64gus (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Ipigott. By any chance, would you recall how you added the reference in this edit to the Sarah Rector article back on 22 November 2021? Jason Quinn (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Jason Quinn: Strange question. I probably found the site by searching for Sarah Rector. I can see I also made comments on the article's talk page. Is there a problem?--Ipigott (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
No problem. I'm trying to figure out which referencing tool you would have used to make suggestions for improvements to it. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Jason Quinn: I no doubt simply used Google search for sarah rector kansas. I can see I still get a hit on the library site today. Are you contemplating going for GA or an article review? Looks like a good candidate.--Ipigott (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
When you say you used "Google search", are you talking about using some referencing tool in the Visual Editor, or did you manually add the referencing source? I'm interested not in the article itself, but the tool used to add the reference (or maybe you did it by hand). Jason Quinn (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Jason Quinn: I never use the visual editor. I don't know whether you would call it an editing tool but way back in about 2008, with the assistance of Dr. Blofeld, I installed an editing aid for citeweb which with one click produces <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|accessdate= |language=}}</ref>. I then add additional parameters as necessary. The reason there is a language parameter is that most of my articles draw on references from non-English sources. I noticed you changed the "author" parameter to "first", "last", etc. I find this procedure tedious and unhelpful. The information displayed under "author" is all that is required and is displayed correctly in the references. I know it is now possible to turn up various reference sequences while editing but these did not exist until recently. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
That's what I was after. Thank you. For automated tools, I'm interested in the order of the parameters and that spaces are added between them. For example, this cite would be better as, <ref>{{cite web |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate=}}</ref>, so that, for instance, |url= and |accessdate= go next to each other and that there's spaces between the parameters so that text wrapping works best to keep the source easily readable. Cheers. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Jason Quinn: Interesting point of view. I can see the logic in spacing but for an editor, it seems to me far more logical to begin with the URL. That is after all what has triggered the reference. Having the URL in first place (i.e. immediately after <ref>) also makes it easier to identify a source if it needs to be named for repeated use in an article. Is this matter being discussed anywhere? It might be interesting to see how editors are reacting. In connection with WikiProject Women in Red, adding parameters to references appears to be among the difficulties which discourage women from becoming enthusiastic editors. Further work on routines which automatically create fuller sourcing from bare URLs may be one way of making things easier. BrownHairedGirl has been doing useful work in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I am mostly using tools built by others, so most of my edits are using formatting designed by others. For some edge cases, I use hand-rolled tools or manual edits.
On parameter spacing, I am a firm believer in "space before pipe, but nowhere else", as outlined by @Jason Quinn: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |accessdate=}}</ref>. Anything else makes the template code hard to read, either by not wrapping (if there are no spaces), or by placing the line break between the parameter name and the value, which also make it hard to read. I have some tools to apply that spacing.
As to the order of parameters, my preference is for declining importance, like this:
URL
Title ... followed by other attributes of the content:
author(s)
work, publisher
date
identifier (ISBN, DOI, PMID, etc)
Access to the content:
access-date
archived copies
status of the URL
Most of the major tools roughly follow this order, e.g. @Citation bot, WP:REFILL, WP:Reflinks, InternetArchiveBot. Personally, I find it uncomfortable to encounter wikicode where e.g. the title and author(s) is before the URL: it screws up my order of assessment, and makes it harder to identify the source. That impedes identification duplicate URLs, naming of refs, identification of low quality sources, identification of dead websites, and more. This is so important for my work that if I am really polishing an article I will move the URLs to first place.
Difficulties in adding params are a significant issue, both as a barrier to participation and a barrier to quality.
My own experiences leave me a outlier on both points, because over 40 years ago I:
learnt programming, initially with some formal tuition. So coding techniques and coding style have been lifelong issues for me, as I have programmed in many different languages to assist my work.
began a humanities degree, where full referencing was hammered into us mercilessly in the first term. By Christmas, we had all got it. But others may never have had that training.
So all of that leaves me ill-suited to judge why others have difficulty with things which I have done routinely all my adult life. To my mind, full citations are the absolute basic requirement for any contribution to a scholarly work such as encyclopedia, and I think it is a deep disgrace that Wikipedia's culture does not require full citations for every contribution. We should require full cite or no edit, while offering training for those who find that challenging. But how to help editors learn citation? I dunno, I have never tried teaching it. The merciless hammering which I underwent in Dublin in the early 1980s worked very well, but an online volunteer community may be less amenable to merciless hammering.
One final point: changing the "author" parameter to "first", "last". This may seem like tedious nitpicking, but it's actually very important. Many referencing styles prioritise lastname, citing a work by a short form of "lastname year", e.g. "Murphy 1979". So scholars are used to reading refs and bibliographies where lastname is the first item ... but the cite templates cannot do that unless the parameters are entered separately. In most cases it is very easy to change |author=Dervla Murphy to |first=Dervla |last=Murphy, and it is a huge improvement.
Thanks for all this interesting background, BrownHairedGirl. I'm glad you agree URLs should come first. On the author vs first, last, I always put the surname/family name first when using author, e.g. author=McAleese, Mary. This seems to work fine in most cases and makes it much easier for me to add to citations. Do you think there's any chance of automating work on bare URLs or do you feel it's safer to monitor the effects of the routines manually? I see that in some cases you find it necessary to go through a series of passes. I must say I really appreciate how you have brought so many articles with bare URLs up to standard.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Glad that was of some use!
As to authors, I just can't see why on earth anyone would format the template as author=McAleese, Mary. In most cases, the author will have been copy-pasted from a webpage as "Mary McAleese". It's no more work to type into that the |first= and |last= than it is to reverse the word order, add a comma and type |author=. The advantage of using separate fields is that the data can be reassembled in different way for difft purposes. One example is short footnotes as I mentioned above, but other uses of the data are available through COinS. Basically, author=McAleese, Mary is bad data entry, a failure to use the appropriate fields.
Thanks for your kind words on my work on bare URLs. Basically, I have automated what I can, but there are many many edge cases which make it difficult. Since May 2021, the total number of bare URL refs has fallen by ~95%, and the number of articles with bare URL refs has fallen by ~80%. We are now in the tedious mopping-up phase.
The core of my work is basically chucking at @Citation bot lists of all the pages with bare URLs. That is now really just a matter of catching new additions; everything else has been though the bot many times.
The remainder is a mix of dead(ish) URLs, and live URLs where @Citation bot cannot get metadata. By far the biggest chunk of those is non-HTML pages, 95% of which are PDFs; that's about 40% of all remaining bare URLs.
The remaining unfilled bare URLs include:
URLs which are genuinely dead, and return a HTTP 404 or 410 response
URLs which are live, but where the server maliciously returns a 404 response to requests for live pages which are made by tools, instead of one of the more specific responses which say "I don't like you"
websites which are live, but do not return a definitive answer of the state of the URL requested. That is the cursed soft 404 problem, which comes is so many forms that it is horrendously difficult to automate handling of them
websites which are unreachable, and probably dead.
URLs which cannot be filled by citation bot, but can be filled by other tools such as WP:Reflinks and WP:ReFill
URLs which are live, but where neither of those tools gets reliable metadata; the page's HTML may be malformed, or the webpage may not be properly structured, or the site may block non-humans (e.g. https://cbc.ca blocks all tools)
websites which require login or cookies or use captchas
websites which are geofenced, such as the many American sites which block European readers rather than comply with the GDPR.
So my work now is mostly a triaging exercise: finding which category remaining bare URLs fall into, and handing them appropriately. I am working in descending order through a list I made of domains by number of bare URLs. Some of them are dead sites, so i tag all those refs as dead; some of them are fillable by WP:Reflinks, so I may do a run of filling them, or I may leave them aside for now; some of them are live but not fillable by WP:Reflinks, so I apply inline tags (see User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites)
This is slow work. Since a lot of this mopping-up phase is manual work, I have begun adding the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner to articles which still have bare URLs that are not inline-tagged, and where @Citation bot has tried multiple times. That banner is now on about 30K of the ~45K remaining articles with untagged bare URLs, in the hope of encouraging more editors to help in the cleanup.
But right now, I am feeling disillusioned. The how-dare-you-suggest-bare-URLs are a problem brigade is almost as numerous as the thanks-for-tagging-lemme-fix-that editors. And new bare URLs are added at the rate of hundreds per day. So basically, I am beginning to think that I have wasted a year of my life polishing a turd, that turd being the ~80% of articles which are created and maintained by editors who don't even aspire to follow even the most minimal scholarly standards. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: Apologies for any misunderstandings but there's certainly no need to feel disillusioned. As I said, your work on bare URLs has been a tremendous asset. That was why I pinged you here in the first place. I think the misunderstanding arises from my wondering if we could not "allow" inexperienced editors to use bare URLs. It seems to me that this might be possible if the various routines could somehow be coordinated to resolve the citation details automatically. What do you think? (In the meantime, I hope you will continue your wonderful work on converting bare URLs to full citations.)--Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Briefly, that idea is not workable.
Automated filling is wholly impossible in about 20% of bare URLs, and inadequate in well over another 60%, whatever tools are used. That leaves about 20% where the tools do an adequate crude job, but the only refs which tools can fill properly are some of those with well-maintained identifiers such as DOI. The rest is tools making best-efforts only.
If we want to write an actual encyclopedia rather than a group blog, then one of the preconditions is that we need editors who have been trained to actually write proper citations. The vast resources of the WMF could be used to create training resources for this relatively simple task, and the community of editors could help.
But instead of working to help people improve their skills, the community and the WMF both prefer to patronise and deceive people into thinking that abysmal citation standards are acceptable.
Forget citation practice for a moment, and look at the sources being cited. Outside of FAs and GAs, look at how few refs are actually to scholarly book or academic journals. Most refs are the results of google searches by editors with no scholarly background in the topic, and most refs are to newspapers or to websites. Both are of variable quality, but for example a large proportion of sports articles have no refs from any source that could be remotely described as scholarly: it's all from sports teams, commercial websites targeted at fans, with a leavening of news reports.
In other words, this place is a low-quality fanzine wrapped around a very small core of articles written with rigour. And it will be nearly impossible to change that, because the community is dominated by people who do not understand the problem and/or do not care about it. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
PS Sorry if anything I wrote appeared as if I had take offence in any way. You have been lovely to talk to, as ever. I am just sounding off about the state of Wikipedia, based on what I have seen from looking at far too much of it.
I think that there is scope to improve the tools which fill bare URLs, because all of them have stuff they can't do which others can do. A merger of all the talents couldn't do everything, but it would avoid having to use multiple tools to be sure that we had done everything possible.
BrownHairedGirl: This has been a useful discussion and I'm thinking of summarizing it for Women in Red. I always enjoy talking to you too as you are certainly one of the most productive and most useful Wikipedians, whether on categories, templates, article enhancements and reviews, or just all your own creations.--Ipigott (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
That's v kind of you!
If you have further questions as you write, just ping me. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Back in July of 2012, you were the third editor to join the Editor Retention project. In 2016, User:SusunW nominated you for Editor of the Week. Years pass and here you are, still hard at work improving coverage of women and their works. Thank you for all you do. ―Buster7☎ 14:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I still think you are one of the most amazing editors WP has. I so appreciate your frequent help and our years of collaboration. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Multi-lingual, Ian speaks English, Danish, French, German, Spanish, as well as a working knowledge of Dutch and other Scandinavian. He is an amazing resource in helping with translations and sourcing. He has been extremely active in creating articles focused on Scandinavia, Luxembourg, music, art, architecture, literature and women. Over 20 entries to GA and over 200 articles to DYK. Reliable, authentic, bright, and articulate.
Recognized for
His tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia
Notable work(s)
Extremely active in creating articles focused on Scandinavia, Luxembourg, music, art, architecture, literature and women. A Renaissance man and champion of the Women in Red project
Buster7, BrownHairedGirl, SusunW: Thank you for such kind recognition. It comes at a time when we are facing difficulties in progressing with the basic aim of Women in Red, specifically to increase the proportion of female vs male biographies. Initiatives such as Editor Retention may help us along but at the moment it looks as if we need to develop new initiatives. Any help in this direction would be warmly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott, you did ask for new initiatives ... so I have a suggestion. It may be an old one.
My thought is: don't make width the sole goal of WIR. Tackle quality and depth too, by identifying articles to prioritise for improvement. That could involve e.g.:
collaborating to bring more WIR articles to GA or FA class.
If these are perennially-rejected ideas, then sorry for wasting anyone's time. But if it helps, I would be v happy to do various types of searches and database scans to help identify articles with scope for improvement. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, BrownHairedGirl, but the quality angle is addressed primarily by Women in Green where in particular we try to bring articles up to GA standard and beyond. (cc Alanna the Brave) Your specific suggestion on destubbing could perhaps again become a focus in connection with Women in Red's month-by-month priorities. It would not however increase the proportion of female vs male biographies which is the project's main aim. As for cleanup tags, I spend some of my editing time on reviewing and re-assessing women-related articles, deleting outdated tags when necessary. In this connection, I frequently come across the orphan tag which remains embedded in multiple issues even when the article is correctly linked. It would save time and trouble if it could be removed along the same lines as when it appears as a tag in its own right. It seems to me that it should not be too difficult to create a routine which handles this correctly. Thanks for your offer of undertaking searches and scans to help us along. One possibility might be searching for red links in biographies of women. This might lead to the creation of more biographies, especially in cases where a red link appears several times. Would this be feasible?--Ipigott (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott: that hunt for redlinks is an interesting idea. I have never searched for redlinks, but I will investigate how it can be done.
BrownHairedGirl: Thanks. Most of the orphans I find are from much older articles. Next time I find one I'll let you know.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, duh @me. I quickly realised that the scan was a dumb idea.
Instead I used AWB's list comparison tool to compare the list of 40,232 WIR articles with the list of 81,451 articles in Category:All orphaned articles. A total of 1,175 articles were in both sets, so I ran AWB over that list of 1,175.
Only 1 one of those 1,175 orphan tags was un-needed: the tag on Kendra Coulter, which I removed.[2] If you want the list of the remaining 1,174 WIR articles with {{Orphan}} tags, just lemme know where to post it. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for going through these so systematically. Just to show you I was not imagining things, Larisa Sergeeva is a recent example of an article I found where the orphan tag had not been removed. I deleted it myself. Maybe it's because I have deleted so many that there was only one left!--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this is fairly simple: an un-needed {{Orphan}} tag will be removed by AWB if the article is included in a AWB run where WP:GENFIXES are enabled. The {{multiple issues}} tag has no bearing on it.
But AFAIK there is no bot which regularly scans Category:All orphaned articles for redundant {{Orphan}} tags. So the tags remain unless and until the article happens to be part of an AWB job devised for some other purpose.
If you want to target this issue on a regular basis, I can show you how to use AWB do it. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: Thanks but I don't want to be bogged down by further technical responsibilities. In any case, if there are tags of any kind, I usually check their applicability and remove or update them as necessary. Nevertheless, if there's a real interest in cleaning up old tags, at some point it may be useful to run AWB for orphan tags through all Wikipedia articles. But there'll no doubt be a problem of computer resources as we so often experience with our Wikidata-based WiR redlink lists.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, with only 81,451 articles in Category:All orphaned articles, an AWB scan of them all is a simple overnight job. Each week, I do lots of AWB scans, and the total is way more articles than that.
It's simply a matter of whether someone is willing to run AWB and leave their PC on overnight. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing MarioGom or Oronsay might be able to handle.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Input on an error in the article United States Medical Licensing Examinationedit
I hope all is well. I know you get a lot of requests, so I'll be quick about this and not take up too much of your time. I've found a blatant factual error in an article and my edit request hasn't received any traction as yet. I've explained the error and listed sources that could be used to correct it. If you have a second to let me know if this looks like a reasonable request it would be a big help. Thanks! Talk:United States Medical Licensing ExaminationSBCornelius (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
SBCornelius: Thank you for consulting me on this but the matter is outside my field of experience or interest. If you want to draw attention to your suggestion, you could perhaps contact MedGME who has been an active contributor to the article. If this doesn't work, you could post something on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine or contact one of the project's active participants. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Issue has been addressed. Thank you for your inputs. MedGME (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
For over 100 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Highly appreciate the recognition!! MedGME (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I love doing people who fit multiple editathons, but whose work looks at the impact of historical events on culture. I found her work fascinating and I think I did not screw up the translations overmuch, but I would appreciate it if you could have a look as time permits. I am very confused about the "Rådet for Europæisk Politik" (Council for European Policy?). Is it European Council or Council of the European Union or Council of Europe, or something else entirely? No worries if you don't know, don't have time, or aren't interested. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: I'll look at this more closely later but at first sight Rådet for Europæisk Politik seems to mean Council for European Politics (not policy). I'm pretty sure it's a Danish organization and is not directly associated with the other organizations you mention. More later.--Ipigott (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your help so much. She was fun to learn about. SusunW (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: I think I've sorted out the most important points on this one. I can see that machine translation is not ideal for Kvinfo. But I sometimes wonder how important it is to provide fully accurate information on biographies like this one. Those really interested in checking things out can always go back to the sources quoted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Ipigott! I recall that you are a member of WikiProject Denmark. Do you read Danish and, if so, ever provide translations? I am currently reading some old 1922 Danish newspapers, and although Google Translate is giving me the basic idea, there's a handful of sentences here and there for which I would like to get a more fluid translation. If you don't read/translate Danish, do you know a friendly and currently-active Wikipedia who does? Bonus points if they like/edit about classical music, ballet/dance, or theatre. Very warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 22:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Silence of Järvenpää: Yes, I am fluent in Danish. I see you have found quite a number of newspaper articles on User:Silence of Järvenpää/Work, no doubt in an attempt to improve the article on Scaramouche (Sibelius). As it would take me quite some time to go through everything, perhaps you could let me know which particular items or sentences you would like me to look at. At first sight, quite a few of the passages you have highlighted in yellow seem to convey the correct meaning. Some strange translations result from OCR errors For example at the beginning of the first item, Alsaa før Krigen, (That is before the war), is misinterpreted as Altsaa for Krigen which Google translates as So for the war.--Ipigott (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Ipigott! Thank you for your kind message ... you're quite the resourceful investigator: I am indeed planning as my next GA push Sibelius's Scaramouche, his only ballet. The articles that I have identified recently became available at no charge, as we've hit the century mark of the work's premiere in Copenhagen. Any mistakes in the Danish are, of course, my own, as I have had to manually type the Danish into Google Translate (the excerpt you mention specifically is from a newspaper that is terribly hard to read, as the scan is very faint). I have a bit more work to do on the translations, and then what I think I'll do is highlight in green the sentences for which I would very much appreciate from you a (near)-native translation ... these are bits that I am likely to quote in the actual article. If you'd like, you could provide your translations (of course at your leisure) directly in User:Silence of Järvenpää/Work (perhaps highlighting them in blue?), but if you'd prefer my talk page or my email, that would work, too. I can't thank you enough, Ipigott! ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Silence of Järvenpää: I'm pleased to hear you're aiming for a GA on Scaramouche. I would be happy to help you along, especially as I was one of the main contributors to bringing Jean Sibelius up to GA standard in December 2015, although I realize a lot of additional work has been undertaken on it since. It seems to me it would be useful to include a passage on Scaramouche in that article, as it is only to be found in the template. As for the translations, I would be happy to make suggestions for improvements on Järvenpää/Work if you highlight in green the passages you feel are most important. Alternatively, also on that page, you could prepare drafts of the additions or changes you wish to make to the Scaramouche article itself, citing the sources involved. I frequently help other editors in this way with their drafts when they have problems with Scandinavian or other European languages. Either (or both) approaches would be fine by me. I'm amazed at the time and trouble you must have spent typing up the text of all those articles in a language you do not know. I hope the information you find in them proves useful for your article. If you need help with other passages from publications in Danish or Swedish, please let me know. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of Finnish. Ping me when you think it would be useful for me to take a new look at your work page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just noticed you've already highlighted some of the passages in green. I'll look at those today.--Ipigott (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Silence of Järvenpää: Ok, I've now looked through all the green passages but there was very little to do. The Google translations were good enough for you to draw on. What I think would be more useful would be for me to go through the changes you make, whether in draft form or on the Scaramouche article itself, and carry out any final adjustments, copy edits, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Ipigott! I'm very sorry for the delay... been a smidge busy IRL. First of all, thanks for the translations you have provided/inspected already. Second, yes, I like your plan better; as I work on Scaramouche I will ping you when it's an appropriate moment to bring you in (to double-check the quotes and paraphrases I've made from the Danish newspapers). Third, I still have not gone through and highlighted in green the final article (although the full translation is now posted), and because it has a lot of good stuff, I will probably ask for your assistance on it, too, once I get back to the project (perhaps this weekend). Fourth, re: the Sibelius bio very much should have added to it a mention of Scaramouche (and The Maiden in the Tower). I can take care of this eventually. Very warmly, and hope you've been well. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 22:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Lostinniagarafalls: The article seems to reflect basic Wikipedia standards. It would nevertheless be useful to cite sources in the introductions to the various tables. I should point out that this is not an area in which I have any experience.--Ipigott (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thamk you so muvj for your feedback Lostinniagarafalls (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I wandered into the Women in Red project and followed some links to some rejected drafts, and randomly chose Draft:Linda Mottram (journalist), which was rejected on notability grounds. Seeing that there are a number of journalists of similar or lesser stature already with articles, she seems deserving of one. She's on the Template:774 ABC Melbourne. What do you think? I'm not a new page reviewer, but have created plenty of pages myself so can move this to mainspace - just not sure about the notability angle. I did add quite a few new refs. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink: You could try to reduce content based on interviews and sites directly connected with her. It's better to have a few good secondary reviews than many which could be considered primary. Also check out the importance of the award. But by and large she seems notable enough to me.--Ipigott (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll take another look later. There weren't many secondary reviews that I could find easily, unfortunately. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thought work for the women in red! - The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart, composed by a woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Texas, Fiji, Australia, California - how could that not be intriguing? Had to write about her, as it was just too compelling. If you have time or interest, can you give it a look? Thanks. SusunW (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Interesting story but very little to edit. I was a bit surprised at her "performing" orations but realize that her appearances combined reciting poetry with delivering her own speeches. Perhaps you can rework "From the time she was two years old, she delivered speeches, often on the subject of temperance and spirituality to veterans groups and Sunday schools." to some like "She began to deliver speeches when she was just two years old and went on to cover subjects such as temperance and spirituality when addressing veterans groups and Sunday schools."--Ipigott (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Good suggestion and thanks. I'm on it. I tend to think that she was probably more of a practitioner of Declamation, which was a big thing in the American South in the 19th century. But, I found no articles that expressly said that. What I know of the art form is that it was first used in the South by missionaries to combat vice and later became associated with poetic recitation and often Black and Latino populations. Thank you so much for looking at it. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathonedit
Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
How's this look? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 06:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden: It looks great! Thanks for all your work on this and all the other opera singers. Have you any more in your queue?--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, aye. Just some of them have awkward aspects I'm struggling with a bit - excessive historical retouching, slightly weird backgrounds, etc. Slowed me down a bit. Compare this one to the original at full size and you'll see all the fibres I wanted to reduce severely. Basically, a lot of the ones I've started are bigger projects than expected. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 10:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Probably going to hold it back a bit longer for FPC here - Iolanthe is probably not going to pass this time through, and A Sensation Novel may or may not, so better to plan ahead. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 02:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, Iolanthe passed, so just down to A Sensation Novel's status. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 22:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, for the record, it's passing on Commons. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 07:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden: The restoration of A Sensation Novel is particularly impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I've always said borders are the worst part of a restoration, and I put so much time into the borders of that one. Not quite enough female connection for me to count it as a Women in Red thing, though Priscilla German Reed was quite a major actress in her day and was a performer, co-owner of the theatre, and co-head of the entire theatrical troupe performing it, so... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 08:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you are asking. Are you thinking of working on File:PGReed.jpg?--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, it's late: The poster for A Sensation Novel is from the premiere production, in which Priscilla German Reed starred. She and her husband also owned and ran the theatre and the troupe of actors. Fanny Holland also starred in it.
As for PGReed.jpg I'd love to restore it, but I'd need a much better copy. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Ian, just letting you know they passed away. I saw they were a member of WiR and you had invited them to join four years ago. --ARoseWolf 19:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. It's always very sad to hear someone has passed away but at least he reached a ripe old age and contributed a great deal to Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
You are so welcome, Ian. He has a beautiful full Song of Life that remains with us. I'll most likely take some time to listen and let the notes impact myself with the amazingly vibrant colors of who they are. --ARoseWolf 19:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Ach, poor guy. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 08:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I've asked GRuban to work on some lovely photos and ARoseWolf to look it over for cultural context, but if you are willing to give this one a copyedit, I'd appreciate it. No worries if you are too busy with other things. SusunW (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I can probably get to this on Tuesday.--Ipigott (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. I see there are indeed a number of photos of her, some of which might even be good for Commons, otherwise fair use. I look forward to their inclusion. I had not realized Kotzebue was a city in Alaska. My association with the name is the German author August von Kotzebue. In my student days in the early 1960s, I took part in his hilarious play Die deutschen Kleinstädter which pokes fun at the pseudo-importance of citizens in a provincial German town at the beginning of the 19th century.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Glad that the article brought you to a good memory. I love those unexpected gems that come from writing and research. I appreciate you so much. SusunW (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, happy memories indeed. In those days I was studying French and Spanish but thought it would be fun to act in a German play too. It helped me to develop my fluency in German. Surprisingly, I can still remember many of the lines in the play. Despite the war years, unlike many of my compatriots at the time, I've always appreciated German culture. (Hope Gerda Arendt still follows my user page.)--Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
For me in writing the article it was the Johnny Carson moment. I literally could picture the expression on his face and it made me die with laughter. When I read the description to my husband, he had the same reaction. SusunW (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your comment on this to GRuban. I don't think many of us are familiar with the term "oosik" - but now we know what it is.--Ipigott (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Question from Nortruth (09:42, 10 October 2022)edit
Hello! I have a question, is it against the rules if an editor posted a controversy or allegations surrounding a band in Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. --Nortruth (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Nortruth, and welcome to Wikipedia. In order to answer your question, I would need more details of the incident you are referring to. In general, edits to articles need to be supported by good independent sources. If you want to learn more about Wikipedia editing, you can follow some of the links on your talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
When you are able, can you give this one a look? I want to nominate it for the WIG editathon. Fascinating family of singers and scientists. Her mom is pretty interesting - who knew opera singers were environmentalists? I am thinking deserves her own article, but opera is a little beyond my comfort zone. She sang with Pablo Casals![3] It's our anniversary, so we'll be heading out soon for celebrating, but I'll be back Sunday or Monday. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Happy anniversary!--Ipigott (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. Looked quickly for info about Enriqueta Legorreta López as an opera singer but could not find very much apart from this. No doubt with your familiarity with Mexican newspapers you should be able to find obituaries from 2010 covering her contributions to opera.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. We had a lovely dinner. I'll see what I can dig up, but a lot of Mexican newspapers aren't digitized or on-line. The archive in DF requires an in-person visit. But if we can scrape together enough, would be an interesting addition to our climate initiative. SusunW (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well, I found that blog is a copyvio of this encyclopedia. There's also a bunch of refs in archive.org. This says she was "the first Wagnerian from Mexico". Her son's bio gives her spouse and children. I have the book that talks about her environmental activism and an obit, so I think that is enough to start working on her. I'll do my best, but will obviously need help on the opera part. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I've covered quite a number of opera singers and would be only too pleased to help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well here it is Enriqueta Legorreta. I am not completely sure that I wrote about it properly, but I've done it. This has several bits about her, but it cannot be borrowed and I cannot adequately run the text through a machine translator. Perhaps you can view the pages that "hit" on her name and see if there is anything to add? Also I think that bit above about being the first Wagnerian is a bit "lost in translation". I can only find that she sang Wagner once and have thus styled it in the article as the first Mexican to sing one of his articles. Apparently Mexico had opera before 1941, but hired foreign singers until the first company was organized in 1941, of which she was a member. I've also asked GRuban to check on the photo I found. I think its copyright expired and we can use it, but I want to double check. Anything you can do to improve it is obviously very welcome. SusunW (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, been in and out most of the day but I see that you worked on it and I appreciate it. I am never sure about what goes in italics, what goes in quotation marks, how much is too much. It often seems like name-dropping, but honestly if you can't show that they played/performed with international caliber performers, I don't know how else one weighs their ability. I figure if I could find this much, mainly in English-language sources, she must have been a pretty big deal and there are surely more reviews in non-digitized works here in Mexico. Nonetheless, she seems adequately notable. I still find it intriguing that an opera singer was an environmentalist. Hopefully George will have time to look at the photo. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
And we have a photo! SusunW (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's a big improvement. I'm glad to see you've brought her into our opera coverage although I must say she does not seem to have been widely recognized, probably because she did not appear outside Mexico. Unlike Mexico, the South American opera houses cultivated stars who appeared internationally in the first half of the 20th century. If you really want some expert help with the article, you could always call on Gerda Arendt (who could no doubt also help you with the italics, etc.). She has been a constructive contributor to many of my own biographies of "forgotten" opera singers. Maybe if you take it to GA, you'll get some useful feedback too.--Ipigott (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, SusunW, on the GA for Enriqueta Legorreta. Amazingly quick development! And I was happy to see Gerda Arendt helped things along. I always consider her as THE expert on opera. She has helped with so many of my articles on opera and music too.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott Yes, her help was invaluable. As was yours and George's. I just do not have the knowledge to put her career in the proper "perspective" or context. Collaboration is so good at improving articles. I think everyone is intrigued by the dichotomy of her career. Literally minutes after I finished the DYK nomination, someone took it. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to enthusiasts like you, SusunW, Wikipedia continues to be a really exciting project to be part of. In recent weeks, we've seen a number of postings pointing to difficulties and quality concerns but I still have great faith myself in what we are achieving.--Ipigott (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm more of a reader of this website than anything else, so I was wondering about how I can record audio versions of Wikipedia articles. Is there a set standard for doing this, and if so, what is the specific software and format to follow for recording? --BlueScreen92 (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There you go, another opera singer. Albeit not a Woman in Red. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 08:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 08:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Great improvement, not just on the Mikado but in particular Geraldine Ulmar. Whether or not women's biographies have been supported by Women in Red, enhancements are always welcome. I see you started working on the Mikado page back in 2013.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure you're very busy with the women bios, but I thought you might be interested. If you feel like adding anything further or improving the sourcing etc go for it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Was it Luxembourg or Liechenstein where you live, I think I got it wrong and you're in Luxembourg! I was looking at Switzerland on google maps and strayed into Liechenstein that's all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear from you, Dr. Blofeld. Yes, it's Luxembourg not Lichtenstein but I see you've greatly improved Gamprin. It reminds me of the days when we were working intensively together on Denmark's most important cities. As you say, I am now spending nearly all my time on trying to improve coverage of women but am happy to report that several others are helping out with many of the tasks I used to do single-handedly. As a result, one of these days I might find time to work on cities and other interesting areas such as architecture, photography and music. It's really great to see you're contributing to Wikipedia so positively again. Keep up the good work! And thanks for your encouraging comments on the WiR contest we've been planning.--Ipigott (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Aw thanks for the kind words! We did some great work on those Danish cities, in some ways they are role models for what needs to be done on every town and municipality in Europe on here! I'll try to do a few translations a week, it's healthy for my language learning. Amazing how many articles are still missing! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I just translated my new article Jose Glover into six languages LOL. It's actually a great way to improve. Obviously I had help with DeepL but useful reading anyway. I won't translate too many though, as this wikipedia is already enough of a time sink! Somebody needs to categorize them on the other wiki though but I copied the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Question from Mirceea (17:46, 26 October 2022)edit
Hi
My name is Mircea and i start reading "espionage and the roots of the cold war" and i read a different information that is in Wikipedia. In Wiki on "Lucy spy ring" there is "It was run by Rudolf Roessler" but in the above book the information it is : "Another
group, the so-called 'Lucy Ring', was based in Switzerland and was run by Alexander Rado". How to proceed?
Thank you very much for your time and advice --Mirceea (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Mircea, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's rather late here tonight but I'll look more closely at your request tomorrow. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Guten Abend, ich habe Schwierigkeiten mit diesem Satz: "Crepuscular título de un tipo de cine que novolería más (hay una escena con música de rock and roll) y que repite escenas en un marco de falsedad".! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld: Guten Abend, Herr Doktor. Leider habe ich zur Zeit keine Gelenkeit Ihnen zu helfen. Vielleicht Morgen - wenn die Sonne scheint.18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)~
Dr. Blofeld: "Novolería" appears to be based on the music site Novoler. In which case the translation might be: Crepuscular (i.e. twilight-like) title of a kind of cinema which tends towards more pop (there's a scene with rock and roll music) and which repeats scenes in a framework of falsehood. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Some of these quotes from film critics are among the most difficult to translate, they're more likely to write pedantically or use less common phrasing and words. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Even inventing words, as far as I can see!--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to write an article about the great musician Benjamin Joel as there isn't one yet
How should I do this --Benjaminjoelmusic (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Benjaminjoelmusic, and welcome to Wikipedia. Our biographies have to be based on independent sources (i.e. not directly related to the person you are writing about) which provide details of the subject's life and achievements. These can, for example, be found in newspapers, published books, critical assessments and descriptions of award ceremonies. If you are unable to find such sources, then the person may not yet be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You will see I have added some useful links on your talk page which will enable you to find out more about contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, how could you help me with putting the headers in the page? Like let me say the page is about planes and there is like a header you can click, i dont know or something but if you know, i am waiting for a positive reponse. --Lirak Kovaci (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Lirak Kovici. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what your question is referring to. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you will find some useful links on your talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi
I had a Wiki login yeaaaars ago and did a few edits occasionally.
Then I got distracted by life, can't recall the login/email I previously used, and let this aspect of social contribution slide.
I have now created a fresh login with my current mail and would like to add a new page for a woman in business I know.
Is there a "starter template" for a new page you can recommend?
Merci and chat anon. --Gavin Kennedy (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Gavin Kennedy, and welcome back to Wikipedia. If you are interested in writing biographies of women, you should look at WikiProject Women in Red. Please let me know if you need further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you very much for being my mentor. May I ask why our inputs are being deleted even if we are following the rules?
Communication Planning --Katutubongpeminista (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Katutubongpeminista, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think you already have some answers to your question on your user talk page, both in the form of links you can use to gain a better understanding of editing and the item in connection with your PhD-related contributions. In general, every addition to an article should be backed by a reliable independent source. Please let me know if you run into any further difficulties. It might be useful if you added basic information about your interest in Wikipedia to your user page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Aye. Bit more to do, but it's already better than a cutting from a sheet music cover (which isn't the worst thing to include, but why not the whole cover?) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 20:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Alanna the Brave. I always enjoy doing a bit of copy editing on SusunW's revealing biographies. Just let me know if ever you think I could help to improve any other GA candidates. I was really happy to see all the promotions resulting from your Wildcard Edition editathon. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
On 17 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enriqueta Legorreta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Enriqueta Legorreta(pictured), who was the first Mexican woman to appear as Sieglinde in Wagner's Die Walküre, became an award-winning environmental activist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enriqueta Legorreta. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Enriqueta Legorreta), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Thank you for the article, done in collaboration. It's also featured on Project Opera's talk, and archived in that project's two DYK records. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Now over 12,000 page views. Great result.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on List of Monegasque people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kacir 20:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
On 19 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tove Birkelund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Danish geologist Tove Birkelund(pictured) received a gold medal for her early work on fossils of Scaphites in Greenland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tove Birkelund. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tove Birkelund), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
After scouring Dutch, English, Georgian, German, French, Polish, and Russian sources, I think I finally have a decent article on her. George is working on a lede image, but if you could give this a copyedit and make sure I did not butcher the French translations too badly, I'd appreciate it. If you don't have time or the desire, no worries. SusunW (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Each time I go through one of these, there's less and less needing attention. Where do you find all these pioneering women? From time to time, I find really enterprising candidates but yours generally seem to be in a league of their own.--Ipigott (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I have been intrigued by her ever since I wrote Joteyko. At that time, the only thing I could find was her research papers. I decided to give it one more go because digitization seems to have improved a lot. When I searched for "ვარია" (Varia) this time, I got that source that showed her Georgian original name was Barbare. That kind of unlocked it, because since 2016 there has been quite a bit of coverage on her written in Georgian. Mostly it lacked details, so I knew I would have to dig into French and Belgian newspapers. (I love that gallica has that text mode option, but I literally had to type out all the Belgian press to translate them.) I found it interesting that you wrote the article on her sister Nino, but I didn't figure that out until I was deep into writing the article. George got the picture I wanted and Kober's help in deciphering the Georgian was invaluable for figuring out the Italian connection and the confusion (well it's still not figured out) over her death. I think being an émigré myself, I am drawn to women who crossed borders, which to my eye makes them more interesting, but also more challenging. I appreciate your help so much. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Greetings!
I face problems in identifying the appropriate categories while writing the biographies. I always try to select from other related articles but couldn't find the right one. Is there any link which will help me to easily choose the category.
Thank you so much for your valuable time and guidance.
With regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirukannan (talk • contribs) 09:53, November 22, 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Thirukannan. It's not always easy to choose the correct categories but there is a facility called HotCat which might help you along. I think you own approach of seeing which categories are used in similar articles is probably the best way of proceeding. In connection with Gertrud Leupi, I see Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been helping to improve the categories. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Thirukannan: Chiming in here to say that I'm a great fan of HotCat as well. I like that it auto-completes category names for you, but does not actually fill them in until you give the OK. It helps me a lot when I'm looking for a category of whose name I am unsure. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.
Hi!! I’m just wondering about how someone who does not have a Wikipedia page can get one. In my context, I am speaking about celebrities from a famous musical group. Some members have a Wikipedia page and others do not. How can I get the others to also have their own page? --Hoshikitty (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Hoshikitty, and welcome to Wikipedia. From your edits, it looks as if you are referring to members of Seventeen (South Korean band). For living people to have articles in Wikipedia, their biographies must be based on at least three informative independent sources such as journals and newspapers, critical reviews, reports of awards ceremonies or published books. It is not sufficient to include references directly connected to the person in question. I've left some useful links on your talk page which should help you to get started on editing. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
More music today, we sing for a Marian feast, I learned that Yvonne Ciannella died, the soprano who impressed me in my first night at the opera, and as she died in March, sadly no Main page reverence is possible, - at least she had a good DYK, at a time when opera singers were considered interesting. I'm proud today that Christiane Hörbiger made it to that corner. - I heard an excellent Christmas concert yesterday, by Tenebrae, and a short excerpt of them singing "Deo gracias" is also linked from my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for these details. On the subject of opera singers, I have always found it strange that we have no lists of operatic sopranos. Today I started to remedy things with the development of a List of Danish operatic sopranos. After I have completed lists of those from the Nordic countries, I hope to cover the rest of Europe. It's obviously going to take quite some time. You are of course welcome to contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
An alto myself, I'd be more interested in lists of altos and mezzos ;) - German sopranos would be almost countless, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
How about a sortable list, with year of birth, main location of activity, and voice type sort criteria - coloratura - spinto - dramatic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a sortable list would probably be interesting but also more difficult to create and edit. I find that most editors find it difficult to make additions to sortable lists but seem happy to add their creations to bullet-list formats. For now, I think I'll try to cover all those in the Nordic countries by creating bullet-pointed lists. As for Germany, it looks as if there are about 280 operatic sopranos and about 80 mezzos. That's comparable with the number of women writers for whom we already have a list. As usual, with over 500 the US has the highest number.--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Understand - you may want to check how many of the "American" sopranos spend most of their career in Germany, though, - Yvonne Ciannella was one of them. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Today was a day rich in music, with two new pictures, and also rich in WP:QAI contributions on the Main page: the TFA, 2 DYK and 2 RD with members as principal editors. The church pictured there (not by me, nice snow dust and tall evergreen) comes with memories, detailed on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest pics, with an opera discovery and some snow. Today my talk has a DYK that was planned for 22 November, among the recent deaths the author of Duck, Death and the Tulip, and now a choir pic of "our" concert last Sunday, likely to become next year's lead image. Enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your news and also for creating Talia Or. Her complaint was interesting. I've now created lists of the operatic sopranos from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. I may start tackling the Austrians, French and Germans early next year. There are lots of lists of women in art, literature and photography but few about opera singers country by country. I think these need to developed over the coming months even though they do little to improve our Women in Red statistics. Like Rosiestep, I really miss the Citation tool for Google Books which made it so easy to rationalize sources such as those from the Großes Sängerlexikon. Now it's such a time-consuming process that I'm just leaving the urls as I find them in my searches. Maybe there are bots that can deal with this?--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Talia Or wasn't the first to not want her birth year on Wikipedia, but once it's in a source, there's little we can do. I thought the era when birth years of women were not given, for politeness reasons, were over ;) - I write my refs copying from one article to the next. For Sängerlexikon, I have a model also in my sandbox, where I just have to change page and name. Thanks for the lists, - my type are lists of compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, Ian, I really miss the citation maker for books; I'm not creating sfns anymore. But maybe I'll reconsider in the new year as I like sfns, e.g., doing it the hard way by typing them out by hand. I guess that's what others are doing? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Rosiestep I've started using this tool but it's not as easy as the old one.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
If we could get a petition together perhaps we could send it to the wiki tech guys and get them to create one on here. I used to have that google book ref maker linked at the top of pages in my javascript it was so useful!! One of the worst losses as an editor I think. I never use the current ref maker on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to this one, Ian, as it's similar but better than the "cite template" for books; it preloads the ref name (you don't have to do it yourself). I will start using it! Dr. Blofeld, totally agree; one of the worst losses for editors. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Never seen such a lengthy discussion as the one on GP. I would go for your ALT 4a.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I remember Talia Or as longer, but don't care. I'm taking a break from DYK, want to write a FA again, and these discussions are too distracting. - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I tried, and got 2 stubs done that were good enough. One other is a B-Class article (but I didn’t do all of it). Getting higher than stubs are hard. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
SikiWtideI: Thanks for keeping in touch. Stubs are useful too, particularly when they lead to collaboration on expansion, as with Lucy Easthope. If you want to go further yourself, you might find some useful tips in our Primer. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello there! My name is Xan, and you are my mentor. I was wondering if you had any ideas/recommendations for one trying to create an article. The article would be about a small game that I quite enjoy, but I need sources. Any idea where sources for a game might be? The game is called Big Tower Tiny Square if you were curious. Any answers or someone you might direct me to? Any help would be appreciated, Xan 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Xandpochondria, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have already done some useful copy editing. I'm no expert on games but my advice would be to look for sources which offer critical assessments and reviews of the game you are interested in. You could look at articles about similar games to see what kind of sources they have drawn on. For example, I see that Gabriel Knight is backed by 14 different sources and one external link. You'll find lots of articles about games at Category:PC games and at all the subcategories under Category:Video games by platform. Try to find articles about games similar to the one you want to write about and look carefully through the sources for those which have been well developed. You might also find it useful to look at Portal:Video games. Let me know when you've created a draft you are happy with and I will try to help you along. You will no doubt have seen your talk page now contains some useful links to get you started on editing. Please sign your messages with four tildes rather than the abbreviated Xan. It will make it easier for people to see your contributions and your talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much on those recommendations, I really appreciate it. I have checked out wikiproject videogames, but I can't view it as it's blocked on my school computer (where I edit). Second, I changed my sig to say Xan, I'm changing it back when I post this comment. Thanks, Xan 22:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I've taken her live, but am still waiting on one source from the Resource Exchange and a couple of photos that George is working on. If you have time or interest, can you give it a copyedit and make sure I did not mangle translation titles too badly. (Note on names, I have opted for Speransky/aya rather than Speranski because it appears with the y more often in English. As for the Cantacuzène name, I have an actual signature and have no clue when that branch of the Kantacuzene family began using that spelling so have opted for consistency.) She came out of work I have been doing with Kusma into the Planta sisters. Fascinating family. Anyway, if you are too busy or not interested, no worries. Hope you have an amazing holiday season. SusunW (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: Glad to see you've been writing about an enterprising Russian women. There seems to be a tendency at the moment to dismiss their achievements. I'll probably get to it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly, I have been avoiding them as well, but her story was compelling and she tied in with the Planta daughters. I literally just got the reference from the RX, but it'll take a bit to digest. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: I've now found time to go through this interesting but lengthy article. Hope my copy edits are OK as at the moment I'm down with a bothersome winter cold. You'd better check everything through. Looking forward to the next one.--Ipigott (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I hope you feel better soon. As I said to Gerda earlier, Les and I have both had a bad cold for the last week and are just coming out the other side of it. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for being my mentor to guide the new editor. You are guiding my edits for long even before Wikipedia assigned you as my mentor. I am grateful for that.
I would like to bring to your attention for redirecting or any other option as appropriate for the article Cornelia Johanna de Vogel. The WiR list mentions her name as Cornelia de Vogel in the Philosophers section (No.111). But the reliable sources and the articles about her in other languages of Wikipedia cites as Cornelia Johanna de Vogel. This is to seek your guidance. Thank you for your valuable time. Thirukannan (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Chipping in here, as a redirect enthusiast: Yes, provide redirects from every form of her name which you have found in any sources. I've made 4 redirects: from Cornelia de Vogel, Cornelia J. de Vogel, C. J. de Vogel"(standard Wikipedia spacing) and C.J. de Vogel" (nonstandard), and I've linked various occurrences of her in some articles and references, and also added her to Vogel (surname), to which De Vogel redirects. Some people would also add her to Cornelia (name) but I think that's pretty pointless, as no-one is likely to be looking for an academic by her given name! The important thing is to check "What links here" after creating redirects, just in case there is someone else who shares that version of the name, in whcih case a hatnote or a disambiguation page entry may be needed. Apart from potentially helpfin the reader, the more redirects there are, the less likely it is that some careless editor will create a duplicate article in future, or a red link which ought to be a blue link pointing to her. And if you create an article for someone with a unique surname, you can redirect the surname to them directly until such time as a second name-holder gets an article, or a mention, so that a surname page becomes appropriate.) PamD 15:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Greetings!
Surprised with so many names. Thank you so much for the excellent work in redirecting and linking all the relevant articles. Thirukannan (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
It is nice to know that you would be my mentor, nice to have a mentor.
I want to create a page / article about our Company "Million Makers LLC" based in US.
Website: MillionMakers.com
Any suggestions or tips from your side. --Million Makers LLC (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Million Makers LLC, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry to disappoint you but Wikipedia does not encourage articles about companies with which you have close associations. For further background, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Furthermore, you should not have a user name based on the name of your company. See Wikipedia:Username policy and Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. If you run into any difficulty with this, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, can i change my setting --MRH.334 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, MRH.334, and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't really know what you mean by changing your settings. You have only just joined Wikipedia and now need to gain some experience in editing. In this connection, I have left some useful links on your user page. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for continuing to edit the List of Women Neuroscientists. I see that Rachel O. Wong is a member of NAS and certainly merits a page of her own. I will get to this when I have a chance, if you don't beat me to it. What does fl. in parentheses mean next to the name of someone.
I still have about 10 names to add to the list. Mvitulli (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I just added a lot of info to her Wikidata entry which is under the name Rachel O Wong (no period after O) Mvitulli (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Mvitulli: Thanks for your efforts. In cases where I am unable to find info on birth and/or death, I use "fl" (i.e. Floruit) which depicts the time when the subject became particularly prominent or active.--Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Queenofconfusion, for the pretty picture and for livening up my user page which all too often gets bogged down in less rewarding topics. Cats and their kittens are among the more helpful items which promote understanding of our articles. In biographies, they are frequently accompanied by ac, ce and sort. You'll see that "cat" is an important component of Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Seasons greetings!--Ipigott (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Y'know this does make more sense but it is so much funnier to just think you were talking about actual cats and just felt like putting that as the edit summary for fun. Glad I made your talk page more fun though! Queenofconfusion (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I finished adding the names of the list I was given. I added them here and also on Women in Red/Biologists in the subclass of Neuroscientists. I hope someone else adds some Wikipedia pages. Some of the women are indeed notable. Happy New Year to you. Mvitulli (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
For over 360 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Revenant fellow originator bidding you a fine year, Ipigottedit
Ipigott (any French legacy, pray tell?), in today's Women in Red, is there any task force regarding female members of species besides homo sapiens, especially those known by name to our great ape ears? These may not yet all be documented on W for their notability. The few of which the human world is already most aware are such as Lucy among other hominids, Koko the gorilla among hominoids, Chaser the world record holding human vocabulary Border Collie, delfin Winter, Petra the African Grey Parrot whose voice control of household management proto-AI made her a sensation before her human family was so troubled by strangers' responses, I don't know why yet myself, that they closed off her public life, so she's the only one for whom care as a living person would properly be de rigueur. But of course there are more, notables in practice or in future potential being roughly half of those notable in the world, just as for hairless apes. A collaborating group is always faster, fuller and better at documenting the overlooked than a single originator plus happenstance readers and searchers who bother to add. Is there a group here yet to whom you may introduce me?
Here's a thought. What Elsa, Joy and George Adamson did was pivotal in changing global human attitudes toward wild animals so for the last 3/4 century we've collectively come into a supportive ethic from the 'savage killer beasts' era millennia long. Just like 20th-21st century women's transcending patriarchy among humans. Well then, if at W we make sure to include the female notables of all other species (we are anywhere from 1 in 2-7 million animals to billions of microbes by taxonomy), this will have the contextual effect of strongly normalizing recognition of women among humans profiled or reported in W. Not by preaching but because noting female members of any species worth attention as personalities or sometimes populations as much as 'red hat ladies' as a socioelect becomes second nature.
And are there Outline or Portal approaches to major subcategories of women/ females such as the catch-all of non-human? (which of course is not only factual other species members but the fictive and the mythological world over all species and I suppose perhaps off-earth where the factuals' question might be whether humans are naming a lesser proportion of off-planet entities with male names, which I suspect is still likely, both in sum to date and in what might be a slowly improving differential trend?
Oh, and WikiProjects on various species and on topics which include notable females may be drawn upon to aid in this endeavor. --Pandelver (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the scope, series is a good perspective. Those few 'closest' things you quickly found are actually quite quite distant from any real recognition, aren't they, so this is a companion hole in W nestled next to the hole in human women. "Women in Red" like the "Red Hat Ladies" movement (discounting for the moment other connotations of in red ;) ) being the group name here, while many editors have all kinds of animal interests (putting aside kingdoms outside of that to focus on the one to which humans belong now), do you think a task force would be called. . . 'Animal Women in Red' task force or something, to keep the name punchy and close?
By the way, in medical and scientific discovery involving live 'guinea pigs', there are surely half the cases where the involuntarily co-producer of the fame was a female animal, besides being an outcome like Dolly the sheep. --Pandelver (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
As you've probably noticed, Pandelver, I've raised your concerns on the WiR talk page. Let's see what others think about it.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, had not yet, though I added a segue para above which you might have already noticed, and seeing the useful way you are reheading this, will move the photos below your new head. I will remain logged on but must move eyes and fingers to a WIP for a while, will be intrigued to see what responses we get around the corner. Pandelver (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, and happy 2023! My name is Ana, and I saw you're assigned as my mentor since I'm new at Wikipedia.
I work for the Society for Experimental Biology, and we plan to organise an editathon this year. For that reason, I started learning about Wikipedia and got very interested in the entire framework. I edited my organisation's page before learning that I should have added a disclaimer about it in my profile and made an edit request instead of editing it myself. What is your advice? Do I need to send a message or revert what I edited? Or should I only add the disclaimer to my User page (which I've just done), and ask to make an edit on the organisation's page from now on? I want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. I hope to contribute to other pages and topics related to biology. In that case, can I edit the page directly or not? For example, if it is part of the editathon event, do I need to also request to make an edit, or can I edit directly? I guess my question is, as a biologist myself, what I can edit directly or not since I'm also related to an organisation that works in the biology field. Hope that makes sense. I'm looking forward to getting your feedback. Thank you! --Ana-colombo (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Ana-colombo, and thanks for bringing these problems to my attention. I'm pleased you see you are planning an editathon. Let me know if you need any help with this. As for your edits on Society for Experimental Biology, I think you now realize that as an employee of the organization, you should not be editing the article yourself. Now that you've explained the situation on your user page, I would leave things the way they are for the time being. If you are interested in making further edits to the article, the best way to do so would be to list the changes you wish to make on the article's talk page in the hope that others will work them in. May I also suggest that in connection with your editathon, it might be useful for you to gain experience by writing articles in the general area of experimental biology, maybe starting with biographies of some of the most notable participants. Let me know if you need further help. All the best for 2023 and happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick feedback and complete response, @Ipigott. This mentorship scheme here is very useful. Much appreciated! I'll add an edit request soon to the organisation's talk page since there are some information there that is not up to date. As you suggested, I will also edit some articles related to the field to gain more experience. Regarding the editathon, we are still putting a plan together, and we contacted the Wikimedia UK for assistance. In general, we are planning to do an online editathon during a fixed period of time this year. We would provide training and some suggestions of pages/content that could be edited related to the experimental biology field, including biographies, biology content, photos and page translation (we have members all around the world). Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or comments. I'll probably contact you again in the near future to ask for help about the editathon. Once again, thank you! Ana-colombo (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Well one of my suggestions, Ana-colombo, would be that you give special attention to women biologists. As you may know, on average less than one in five of our biographies are about women. From this list, you should be able to find names of some of those who deserve articles. In this connection, you might be interested in looking at WikiProject Women in Red. If you start drafting an article, please let me know when you would like to receive feedback. You can create your first new article as user Ana-colombo/name of article. Keep in touch!--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions and for the links. I'll have a look at the names and see if I can find sources to add some information about some of the women biologists listed. I will also join the WikiProject Women in Red to be up-to-date with the project. One of our goals with the editathon is to update/create biographies of historically marginalised experimental biologists. So, this is very aligned with our views and very helpful too! Good to know that I can contact you for feedback if I start an article. I'll keep in touch, thanks! Ana-colombo (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised that this doesn't happen more often than it does, but when I tried to move my draft User:SusunW/Eugénie Hamer which I've been working on for several days to mainspace, it tells me that you created Eugénie Hamer today. I know that someone, will need to merge them to preserve the history, because that is outside my wheelhouse. Perhaps Rosiestep or one of your other pagestalkers can help? Once that is done, I'd appreciate your looking it over to ensure that I have not bungled the translations of the French titles too badly. SusunW (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
SusunW, and Ian, I've performed the merger per the Wikipedia:Merging process, but no copyediting or rearranging. Nice article! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep. Appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, SusunW, to have tripped on your toes with this one. Just as well you caught it before I started to expand it. I've now looked it through and congratulate you on the level of detail you have managed to include. I am however a bit confused by the sentence beginning "Despite the fact that Belgian feminists such as Jane Brigode refused to attend meetings of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance after the war which included Germans..." Are you sure "after the war" should be included?--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @SusunW It might be useful to create a "placeholder" stub with a single well-sourced sentence (X (dates) is/was a Y-ish Z) and an {{under construction}} template, when you're starting work on an article? Then you can copy your finished article to overwrite the stub when it's ready. PamD 08:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
PamD Thanks for the suggestion. I'll ponder it. Ipigott you are right! War was on-going. Need to fix that! I was really happy to find a sort-of death date. Definitely not in 1926, but couldn't get closer than her obituary publishing date in 1951. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
SusunW: Strange you should mention the death date. It seemed very strange to me that it could not be established more closely. If I had not found anything, I was going to ask you!--Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Ipigott Newspaper access is invaluable, as it that trick Kusma taught me about using google translate and the camera on my phone. Perhaps as KBR digitizes more articles, more information will surface. I was surprised that the obit was so detailed but didn't go beyond, "we have learned of the death of..." I mean like really? Not even a this week, last week, last month. But still 1951 lets us know she lived through both wars. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Nice work, a worthy endeavor. Apologies for removing Rosalinde von Ossietzky-Palm from the list of peace activists, but couldn't find a reason to place the See also link on her page (and I'd just removed another editor's addition which didn't seem to fit). Is there more on her which would further qualify her for such a list? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping in, Randy Kryn, and for taking an interest in my recent women pacifist bios, frequently adding See alsos. I was actually responding to you about this on your talk page when you came in here. There is indeed obviously much more to be written about Rosalinde von Ossietzky-Palm (not Margaret Torre as in your edit summary). I rarely embark on a new article unless I can bring it up to at least Start class within a day or two. For example, in this case Ossietzky-Palm spent considerable efforts trying to restore the reputation of her father, not only writing his biography but by maintaining close relationships since the 1970s with the University of Oldenburg, later renamed Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. She was in fact present with Gerhard Schröder at the renaming ceremony in 1991. For her efforts, the university named her its first "Ehrenbürgerin" (honorary citizen) in 1991. I should also point out that very few Jewish women from the Nazi era have been so closely involved in the cause for peace. So as not to attract orphan templates, I always try to provide links to other articles and lists as soon as I move my first draft to main space but from your speedy deletion, I realize this might be premature. If you are especially interested in pacifists, you might like to assist me in adding Category:Pacifist feminists to appropriate articles, particularly those from the UK and the US. Now that there are so many in that category, I intend to break this down into country-based categories in the near future. Keep in touch and happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed response. Torrie was the one I removed before your addition, as neither really fully fit the list. I believe that list should stay for those extremely active in peace activism in an organizational way in a societal shifting role. Promoting and caring for her father's legacy is noteworthy, although maybe not "qualifying" (I will have to read more about him, sounds interesting). Nice subject matter choices, I don't know how much I can help in the category but will of course take a look. Good meeting you (again? I don't recall if we've had interactions before), and appreciating your work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I hesitate to prolong this discussion, Randy Kryn, but my interest here is to revive interest in some of the forgotten women activists who have participated quite strongly in the cause for peace. From List of women pacifists and peace activists, you can see that over the past few years we have been making pretty good progress. I realize from your article creations that you are mainly interested in paintings and sculptures but as a result of your reactions on my recent biographies, you might like to help us to reduce the gender gap by participating in Women in Red or at least taking a more active interest in new biographies of women or articles about women's activities or works. Looking at the history of List of peace activists], I see that like like NSH001, you have been active for a good many years, helping to develop a more meaningful list since early 2013. I've also tried to improve its coverage by adding many women activists. Perhaps it's time for us to include many more. I can't say I really agree with your analysis that the list should be reserved for "those extremely active in peace activism in an organizational way". My basic approach to such lists is that if people have been covered by relevant articles, they should be included in appropriate lists. Thanks nevertheless for all the time and effort you have spent on improving the list and taking an interest in new candidates.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarification: Started looking at this on the basis of the Norwegian article. The correct name is Rosalinde von Ossietzky-Palm (not Rosalinda). I think I've made the necessary corrections. Busy day.--Ipigott (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ipigott, thanks for the kind words. Art is one interest, as are others. An interesting read, and good work in the expansion, possibly worthy of a main page 'Did you know...' nomination. Tracking down her common name proved worthwhile. I would still oppose her addition to the peace activist list, although I'm sure her intent and loyalty, if not her deeds, would apply. The article seems to say that she basically spent her time promoting her father and clearing his name, commendable (and again makes me want to read more about her dad) yet unless I'm missing something major, reading comprehension related, I can't see how this route applies to herself being listed as a notable peace activist. Would rather keep fairly high standards on such a list, although a life well lived in pursuit of honoring her father touches many other lives. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: If you would like to go ahead with a DYK, be my guest. As I explained on your talk page, I think the fact that a Jewish woman from the Nazi era was awarded two German peace awards makes her a deserving candidate. I've read many more obits in various languages and they all comment on her peace efforts. There are already articles about both her father and mother.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I just went back and read the page more slowly and line-by-line, and can't see how my assessment is incorrect from the detail provided. She promoted and honored her father in many venues, and received a prize named after him. Being Jewish or a woman has nothing to do, in my opinion, with addition to the list which, although I've tried to see this from your point of view, still cannot find enough reason on her page to include her. Maybe another ping to NSH001 will be helpful. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: I think we've spent enough time on this. I would prefer to devote my time to writing about other women who could be considered pacifists.--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
(responding to ping). Ian, I think I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: I hugely appreciate the work you've been doing on pacifists and peace activists. Two things:
Whether or not an entry belongs on the list should be discussed on talk:List of peace activists, not on a user talk page.
But since we're here, I'm inclined to allow these two ladies to appear in the list. I don't have a strong view either way, though.
NSH001: Thanks for responding and offering some sensible advice. If there continues to be a problem with those considered by some of us to be pacifists or peace activists, I agree the discussion should be brought to the list's talk page. Let's first see how things evolve over the next few days. More generally, I've taken the opportunity of looking through your article creations and am impressed to see how many of them are biographies of women. I realize you now spend most of your editing time improving existing articles but if you feel like writing more women's biographies, you might be interested in joining WikiProject Women in Red where we have chosen Peace and Diplomacy for special attention throughout 2023. That explains my current interest in peace activists. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The list is for peace activists, with the emphasis on "activist", those who actively work and lobby for major peace initiatives. It is not a list of pacifists. The "problem" with the woman who promoted her father being added seems small, she either was a recognized activist working for peace in an organized and cooperative way or she wasn't, and nothing in her article, as it stands, indicates that she was a peace activist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd seen Melle-Hermans and just looked at Misar after reading your above note, good work. You're kicking in high gear. Have you seen List of suffragists and suffragettes (Misar would be an addition there). Years ago I spent a lot of time on that list, adding names and such, and haven't done so in awhile so there are probably a lot of 'See also' mentions to be added. I found, again years ago, that adding a page to See also sections of its entries really ups viewership, sometimes by hundreds a day. Which surprises me a bit, because I wouldn't think many people actually go down the page far enough to see See also but apparently they do. Just went through the List of dancers added it to See also's (and had to add Ginger Rodgers to it! I met her not long before she died), will see if that brings further viewers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: Yes, it would certainly be useful to spend some time updating the List of suffragists and suffragettes. As you have probably noticed, many of the women pacifists were also associated with votes for women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The fact that most of the biographies I have created have been for women is fortuitous, and not intentional. By chance, someone on a mailing list used by my running club mentioned that Chrissie Wellington, a former member of the club (she left it before I joined it) had just won the Ironman World Championship. I was astonished that someone could come from nowhere, and in less than a year win the World Championship. That piqued my curiousity, and I started investigating her history and began expanding her article from a tiny stub. I wound up writing lots of new articles to avoid red links on her page; most of those were naturally her rivals – other female triathletes. It is true that discrimination against women is real, and is reflected in a relative lack of women among wiki bios, but at least people are aware of the problem, and are working to remedy it. I do feel uneasy about creating categories and lists for women only; I think that should only be done if it makes sense to also create a corresponding category or list for men only. More generally, the fact that discrimination against women exists does not mean that discrimination against men and boys does not also exist. A glaring example: recently I've had a lot of interaction with doctors and hospitals. My GP surgery has only ONE male doctor (one of the two senior partners). All the other doctors, apart from an occasional hospital junior doctor undergoing training, are women. Not only the doctors – EVERYONE else in the practice is also a woman. Even the "IT manager" is a woman. Another example: a few years ago I had to deal with a firm of solicitors. The senior partner (who may have retired by now) was a man; ALL the other lawyers were women. What is worrying is that hardly anyone is aware of the discrimination against men and boys, and very little is being done to fix it. --NSH001 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, NSH001, for these interesting comments. If there are indeed clear cases on Wikipedia indicating that there has been discrimination against men and boys, then it might be useful to draw up redlists of those deserving articles. That said, statistics such as those compiled by Denelezh show that for most occupations, including health professionals, medical specialists, physicians and also lawyers, our coverage of women is well below that of men. As for categories, for those who use the encyclopaedia, they contribute to a better understanding of the role women have played in various spheres while for editors interested in extending coverage of women, they provide a basis for monitoring progress and providing results which can be translated from one language version to another. There are, btw, a number of categories devoted to males, frequently reflecting those for women. We have, for example, Category:Male musicians, Category:Male writers, Category:Male artists, Category:Male nurses, and all the subcategories under Category:Men by occupation.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
My 1,900th woman's biography is on Bernadette Cattanéo, translated from FR-WP. If my mom were alive, I'd ask her to review my translation work, but as she's passed, I was hoping you might find some time to do so... no rush at all. Thanks in advance. BTW, added her to WIR-251, but if you think that's a stretch, I'll move her to WIR-00-2023. Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I've been through this quite carefully but as you can see there was very little which needed attention. For me, it's fine to include her under WIR-251, especially as she established the World Committee of Women Against War and Fascism. I would also include her in the List of women pacifists and peace activists. Just let me know if ever you need me to look through other articles you have translated.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian. I looked at each edit you made and said to myself, "Oh, yes; this is better." I wasn't aware of that list and now I've added Cattanéo to it. I know you are busy with other things, but I'll take you up on that kind offer and let you know that I've also translated these from FR-WP: Fanny Clar and Colette Reynaud. If/When you have time to review them, I'd be appreciative... again, no rush. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Good to see two more biographies of pacifists. I'll look at them later but I would first like to complete basic coverage of Olga Misař.--Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
just my mother's birthday - she introduced me to music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Two day's after my father's, who was also a keen pianist.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
My mother would have loved to play the piano, but there was no money, nor room. She played akkordion, but didn't have one when I grew up. Great was my surprise when she played for my grandparent's 50th anniversary. She made me learn the piano, after the recorder. I should play more, - new year's resolution ;) - Did you see today's TFA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Same for me, - article by Amitchell125, and a Ukrainian composer (by the same) will follow. I mentioned Parsley in the Debussy discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm on vacation, - click on songs! I tell my own stories now, instead of relying on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Enjoy! Hope you manage to get away from the rain.--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and managed so far. No rain on highest mountain (but no pics yet). Today's topic Elisabeth Waterhouse, my first subject's mother, going to be 90 next month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
more pics - there's an RfC on Jenny Lind that might be mentioned for WiR --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. No objection to an info box for Lind.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I think projects should be notified of RfCs, but don't know, - I never started one. - User talk:Storye book#Elena Manistina, or: why Tchaikovsky's The Enchantress isn't on the Main page. Sorry, but that's my last DYK about a woman, two more about compositions and that's it. I don't have the time for the arguing it takes these days. I'd still review if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel exactly the same way about DYKs although I am always happy when someone nominates one of my articles.--Ipigott (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I could still do that, let me know. Just telling a good story, and then have it diluted in painful steps (up to 19), - that's not how I want to spend my time. For Pisarenko, we said that she studied Norwegian, and for Manistina, that someone else mimed for her, - marginal things that leave me ashamed. I feel strongly that the one sentence we only have should be core to the subject, not something quirky on the side just to please a crowd. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Create new page --ArtPaintLife (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, ArtPaintLife, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have left some links on your talk page which should help you get started with editing. Please let me know if you run into any problems. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry to bother you but...I had started a draft biography page for Katherine Clerides, a living Cypriot peace builder, when I discovered that she has a page in the Greek wikipedia already. Does this mean, I should abandon my page? (But when translated into English, the Greek page gives her the pronoun 'He'). Or can I keep going, using some of the good references and leads on the Greek page? If so, then once I have a much better draft, should I then offer the draft to the Women in red project and ask for help on linking 'my' page on KC to the Greek wikipedia page somehow? Grateful for any advice you might offer. (My version is still very much at draft stage but I don't want to spend time on it if it should actually be abandoned) Thanks! Balance person (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Balance person: By all means base your draft on the Greek article Καίτη Κληρίδου. Many of the Women in Red articles are based on translations from other Wikipedia language versions. For copyright purposes, your first edit comment should clearly state that you are translating from the Greek article. You can then of course include information from any other sources you have found yourself. In machine translations from languages in which verbs can be used without pronouns, you will often come across he instead of she for women. You can let me know when you are satisfied with your draft and I'll try to help you along. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks VERY much for your clear, helpful and fast response. Great! I will continue with the draft later!
Hello again! Given my limited research skills and resources I think I have found just about everything I can on tis Cypriot peacemaker. Perhaps I should say Greek Cypriot? Could I trouble you to take a look at Katherine Clerides when you have a spare moment? I hope it is not too poor an effort. Thanks if you can! Balance person (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Balance person: You've made a pretty good start on this and I've moved it to article space. It's getting late here now so I'll look at it again tomorrow and report back. Congratulations on putting together an interesting biography.--Ipigott (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh you are so speedy! Thank you. I will await your comments on the biography page of this rare bi-community worker. Balance person (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Balance person: As I said, you've made a pretty good job of this, adding one more interesting article to your collection. You'll see from my edits that I've made some minor changes to the text and presentation and have added Authority control. Defaultsort and various categories. If you want to improve the article further, you could re-express the bullet-point list of her bi-communal work in normal running prose. Bullet points are useful for recording achievements but the quality of the article would certainly benefit from running text, maybe in a separate section. If you click on "What links here" in the left margin, you'll see I have included links to Clerides in a couple of other articles. Not only does this make it easier for users to find the article but it also avoids orphan status. Let me know if you need further help with this or any other articles. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I see from Glafcos Clerides that she was born in London. Perhaps you could include this detail if you can find a reliable source.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for making it professional. I have done as you suggested re bullet points. Still looking for a citation for London birthplace that is not blocked as unreliable! I will now mug up on 'Authority control', 'default sort' and the matter of linking and orphans. Thanks for giving me things to learn about! Balance person (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
As a freelance journalist, I see no viable workarounds here. I am certainly interested in whether Wikipedia can resolve this issue with enterprise alone. Pursuant to that, I have made an edit to see what happens. MackTense (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit. Fine by me.--Ipigott (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott, I'm looking to publish a page for College Unbound -- it's a new college in Rhode Island that's listed in the "List of colleges and universities in Rhode Island" article. I do work there currently, but feel I could submit something that's unbiased. Could you let me know how I'd have to disclose this? And if you don't think it's a good idea for me to write the article, how might I go about getting someone else to? --NateSvogun (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, NateSvogun. Thanks for your interest in creating an article on College Unbound. Wikipedia does not encourage articles by those who are closely associated with the subject. I therefore suggest you find someone else to create the article, perhaps DMacks who is the main editor of Rhode Island or Toohool in connection with the List of colleges and universities in Rhode Island. You could also express your interest in having this article developed on Talk:List of colleges and universities in Rhode Island where you could provide links to what you consider to be reliable, independent sources. If this provides no responses, then you could create user:NateSvogun/College Unbound in your user space and see if someone is willing to move it to article space. You should then state your connection with College Unbound on your talk page (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). If you are really interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to create an article about something or someone you are not connected with. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Rosiestep: It's not French but Latin. It is the feminine form of "historicus" and is used to show a woman is a historian. See historicus.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
You are brilliant! And I kick myself for not having thought this through further. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Not brilliance, Rosie, just years and years of Latin at school. I always remember my first (second-hand) Latin primer. It's title "First Steps in Latin" had been changed to "First Steps in Eating". The first blank page had been inscribed with a rhyme:
Latin is a language
As old as old can be
It killed the ancient Romans
And now it's killing me.--Ipigott (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Haha! But even years later, it's come in handy. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I was wondering if, while uploading an image for a Wikipedia page, whether you’d advise not choosing an image taken by Getty images because of the watermark?
Thank you! --Hoshikitty (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hoshikitty: No, you can't upload an image from Getty Images. There are very strict copyright rules in regard to images. See, for example, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts. Please let me know if you need more assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Aarhus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to this, Onegreatjoke. It's always irritating when people add unrefereneced stuff. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Maybe Dr. Blofeld would also like to take a look too.--Ipigott (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Consider notifying article writers before taking an article to GAR Onegreatjoke. Often experienced editors will know what has happened and be able to quickly deal with it and you'll find it is often unnecessary taking it straight there. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, Dr. Blofeld, but perhaps actually starting the reassessment process is liable to trigger more concerted action. I was pleased to see Onegreatjoke had also alerted user Jaguar (no longer active) and posted a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark. In any case, it looks as if my ping to you has been useful. Thanks to your adding "citation needed" to unsourced additions, we can see what needs to be checked. I see that RhinoMind has done a lot of work on the article and might be interested in helping out. Unfortunately, he has not been very active lately. The other frequent contributor, Gardar Rurak, has not been active since last May. So it looks as if I'll have to deal with most of the problems myself. As one of my grandsons is now studying in Aarhus, I suppose I have an incentive to get things sorted out. I can probably get started on it tomorrow. At first sight, it looks as if it will not be too difficult to find reliable sources, especially those in connection with many of the new developments in the city. If any additions can't be adequately sourced, they'll just have to be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
If it was a comprehensive re-review in the way that you'd review an article for GA I'd agree, but "Some uncited material that needs to be cited" can be done without opening a GAR... What I would do is go through GA articles, add citation needed tags where needed and notify the article writers. Allow a week for them to address it. If not, then proceed to GAR..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! And thanks for notifying me.
"I see that RhinoMind has done a lot of work on the article and might be interested in helping out. Unfortunately, he has not been very active lately. The other frequent contributor, Gardar Rurak, has not been active since last May."
I'm currently working very long hours in the restaurant business, so I haven't been active for a long time. However, that is not the only reason I haven't been engaged with the Aarhus article. A long time ago, I felt I had done my part, and the article was quite good in my opinion. Since then some new editors have added stuff that wasn't sourced, and often of a poor quality too, I'm afraid. A few editors even changed some things for the worse. It annoyed me, but not enough that I engaged with the issues. My thinking is that I can't be on top of this article for ever. I don't have the time or motivation, and I guess this is how Wikipedia works basically?
Regarding Gardar Rurak, we had a quarrel (a long time back) about what the article was all about. He wanted it to focus on tourism, and what tourists wants to know about the city. I strongly objected, as I don't see Wikipedia as a tourist's service at all. And also because such a focus would miss out on crucial issues. I think he abandoned the article back then, and I haven't discussed with him since.
Btw, Aarhus has a pretty good Wikivoyage page! I think so, because I have written most of it :) Also back in the days. The Food-section, however, is lagging because of the covid disruption. Haven't had the time to fix it yet.
Again, thanks for notifying me. Hope you will sort things out. RhinoMind (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Good to hear from you, RhinoMind. Thanks for filling us in on the background and for making so many useful contributions to this article and places in and around Aarhus. The reason I haven't been paying much attention to all the articles about Denmark I once contributed to is that I now spend most of my Wikipedia time on trying to improve coverage of women. I nevertheless recognize that as Denmark's second city, Aarhus deserves to maintain GA status. I'll therefore see what I can do today or tomorrow. I'll get back to you if I run into any serious problems. I see Dr. Blofeld has already made a start. Interesting to hear you are active in the restaurant business.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I've now been through the whole article, adding sources where required. There might still be the odd detail which is not specifically covered but I think all major items have now been suitably referenced. In many cases I found the Danish-language sources more informative than those in English and have used them accordingly.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott. Thank you for your recent updates of the Aarhus article. I just had a quick look at the lead and I must say that I am a bit concerned. I haven't studied the edit history (and am therefore not aware who added what information when) but I am in particular puzzled by this sentence: "Nevertheless, Aarhus grew to become the second-biggest town in Denmark during that time". Do I completely misunderstand what "that time" refers to or is this simply wrong? Aalborg and Odense remained bigger than Aarhus until the 1850s. Depending on the definition of "Denmark/Danish", in Jutland" Flensburg was also a bigger and more important urban centre than Aarhus. And even Helsingør (which is unfortunately stuck with a very poor Wikipedia article) had a larger population than that of Aarhus for long periods of time until the first half of the 19th century (5,282 as opposed to 4,102 in 1801 (25 %); Helsingør was also bigger at the 1672 and 1787 censuses, whereas Aarhus was marginally larger than Helsingør in 1769, cf. this table of Danish market towns. In my opinion, the current lead focusses a lot on just how old Aarhus is and makes it sound as if the city has been the most important urban centre in western Denmark for centuries. A more sober and detached account of the city's history would perpaks recognize that it was not until the middle of the 19th century that the city really started to grow. I am also not sure what the basis is for concluding that it is the "Danish city with the youngest and fastest growing demographics" It is true that Aarhus is the youngest but(depending on definitions) a number of other cities are certainly faster-growing. The use of the word "here" (as opposed to "there" or neither of the words) is perhaps also undesirable since it indicates that it was written by a person in Aarhus whereas a more neutral formulation would perhaps seem more encyclopedic. Sorry to write it here on your talk page but I don't want to raise these concerns on the talk page of the talk page since I would hate to see it lose its GA status. And I am also not going to engage in a lot of discussions about these matters since it is my experience that they tend to get very emotional and time-consuming and it is simply not something I am interested in using my time on here on Wikipedia. I have therefore on purpose not looked on the rest of the article to see if it has the same problem.Ramblersen2 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Question from Jeroge2 (08:59, 24 January 2023)edit
Hello. Check out https://ncgccinc.org/founder/. I am adding the National Convention of Gospel Choirs and Churches. --Jeroge2 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Jeroge2, and welcome to Wikipedia. Do you mean you want to create an article on National Convention of Gospel Choirs and Churches? If so, you should first look into some of the links I have posted on your talk page. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Amazed at how quickly you were able to source Aarhus! I just went to resume where I left off and was pleasantly surprised at how much you did yesterday. Thanks for everything you do here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Dr. Blofeld, for yet another barnstar. This one seems to be the 15th you have been kind enough to award me since 2012. As for Aarhus, once things had quietened down here, I was able to work through it quite quickly, thanks to the templates your had inserted. But as a result I'm getting a bit behind with my new biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've finished her. Fascinating life. Have George working on a photo. If you could give it a copyedit, that'd be great. As I said on my page, the 2nd note gives us lots of women's names for February and Black History Month. SusunW (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
SusunW: Amazing productivity. This one will be my priority for tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks :) SusunW (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel bad for nagging you, but I think Bertha slipped through the cracks. In the meantime, one I have been working on since June on Kae Miller, which is finally done and can use a copyedit. Please just say if I am overburdening you. (I have two more in the hopper - an Italian and a Black peace activist that I am trying to finish up before family arrives in a few weeks and I probably won't be able to work.) SusunW (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
SusunW: Done. Glad you nagged. I've been distracted by too many other things over the past few days. It's a great article. I see it contains the names of lots of red-linked Black women, some of whom may be candidates for our February focus on Black women. I'll look later at KM. You are certainly not overburdening me. I always enjoy working on your articles.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I posted them on Women in Red, but no one seemed interested. Thanks for looking at her. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I've now been through Kae Miller too but I'm a bit confused about references to the German language in the War years section. You first say she was fluent in German but later you say "She studied German with Elias to help them financially". As Elias was a German speaker, I suppose she was studying with him to improve her own German. By "them" you no doubt mean Elias and his wife as I suppose she was paying for her tuition. Perhaps you could clarify. It looks as if you are trying to adopt NZ spelling as in travelling and honour but you still have neighbors. Let me know when you are ready with the Italian and the Black peace activist. By the way, I've just started working on Gunhild Tegen, a Swedish pacifist who also helped with Jewish refugees. There have long been articles about her in Swedish and German but they both concentrate on her work as a writer. Wikidata had nothing to indicate she was a peace activist.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
You know I am terrible with BE and I always miss some of the spelling transitions. And yes, apparently they wouldn't let her give them money, so she took lessons from Elias and his wife and paid tuition. Thank you so much for looking at them. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
On 27 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laura Bergt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Laura Bergt was said to have gained millions of acres of land for Native Alaskans by Eskimo-kissing Vice President Spiro Agnew(pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Bergt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Laura Bergt), 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.
Hi Ipigott, may I ask if you have possibly missed my comment about the Aarhus article above? I do know that you are busy with women biographies but I do think that those issues need to be addressed in a GA status article. And I would really prefer not to be the one who does it since it is unfortunately my experience that such matters can be surprisingly sensitive, especially for the very proud residents of the lovely city of Aarhus.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, Ramblersen2, I completely missed your comment. There have been so many additions to this page over the past few days that one alert tends to override another. Thanks for your useful comments. I'll look into it on the basis of your suggestions. Further work certainly needs to be done on the article but I have been concentrating first and foremost on the lack of supporting references.--Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I completely understand, I am always not sure weather to place a comment like that in an old section (where it is so easily missed) or at the bottom (where it may break up qan ongoing discussion and result in repetitions).Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Ramblersen2: I would have thought your suggestions would have best been added to the talk page on Aarhus where other editors would have an opportunity to take them into consideration. A ping to me from there might have been more effective. I look at the history of this talk page every two or three days and would no doubt have seen you listed there.--Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
user:Ipigott: Fair enough. I sawy User:Dr. Blofeld's comment on your talk page and thought that it might be better to post it on your talk page where a discussion was already going on (leaving it to others to decide if something needed to be done). Sprry if I completely misunderstood his point.Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Ramblersen2: I've tried to edit the lead so that it at least reflects information presented in the body of the article. Since August 2014 when I last worked seriously on it, several items were incorrectly added to the lead without any coverage in the relative sections of the article. I have therefore deleted them. I also restored an important section from 2014 on the cathedral and other historic buildings which for some reason had been deleted. I think this probably responds to your most important concerns but please let me know if there's anything else needing urgent attention. You are of course welcome to work on the article itself.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks good to me now. Sorry for troubling you with it. It is a shame that it is a bit of a Sisyphus work to edit popular pages like that since they are so often later changed for the worse.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for persisting in the planning work for February's Women in Red events. I really appreciate your pushing on after I stepped back. We got there in the end! Oronsay (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
PS: You may recognise the image. It's a painting by Emmy Thornam, whose bio you created last March. Oronsay (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That's really kind of you, Oronsay. And how thoughtful of you to include Thornam's hawthorn blossom painting. As preparations for February looked increasingly confusing, it seemed important to get everything back on track. I'm happy to see that all the essentials have now been OK'd. I'm still wondering if we need to do anything more about casting directors/film. I've updated Geofocus Mediterranean for March in the hope that it will also trigger interest in better coverage of Italian women. Maybe you would like to take a look together with our geofocus expert WomenArtistUpdates.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
SusunW (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kathleen Hammond and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Kathleen Hammond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
edit
