User talk:Dawnleelynn/Archive 4

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones Thank you for your good wishes for the holidays. I also wish you a peaceful 2019! Although, sadly, White Arabian Filly has been on the Missing Wikipedians since last April. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.
Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Atsme submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I like to point out to people in RL that are unfamiliar with WP that every article has a useful, informative talk page. The same is true for User talk pages. I direct you to Dawnleelynn's talk for an interesting view into the construction of substantial articles about the wonderful wide world of rodeos. Always a helpful collaborator Dawnlee writes and improves articles about horses, the American West, Barrel racing and what seems to be one of her favorite topics, the American Bucking Bull. She works tirelessly when presenting an article. An excellent example of her diligence and desire to get the article right is Charmayne James, an article she authored and helped promote to GA status. She is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. 60% of her 9000 edits are to Mainspace and she has dozens of DYK nominations. Check out Mossy Oak Mudslinger, Bodacious (bull). Red Rock (bull) or Bruiser (bull) for her articles about the elite of animal super stars and great examples of her prowess as an article writer that deserves to be Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

A Bucking Bull Rider

Dawnleelynn

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 6, 2019

Dawnlee constructs articles about the wonderful wide world of rodeos, horses, the American West, Barrel racing and the American Bucking Bull. Works tirelessly when presenting an article and is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. See Charmayne James, an article she authored and helped promote to GA status. Has dozens of DYK nominations.

Recognized for

making substantial edits to Wikipedia

Notable work(s)

Mossy Oak Mudslinger, Bodacious (bull). Red Rock (bull) and Bruiser (bull)

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Atsme and Buster7 My heartfelt thanks for this honor. I shall try to be worthy of it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Buster7 and Atsme Bodacious' picture has been commented out due to WP:NFCC#9. I have a bunch of pictures I uploaded to Commons though. But none are of the subjects of my articles except one tie down roper at CFD in 2017; and it's not a close-up. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the Bucking Bull rider silhouette is OK. If not we can go with the tie down roper. ―Buster7 ☎ 01:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Buster7 Thank you very much for the replacement. It's excellent. I'll let you know if anything comes up. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dawnleelynn,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Hey, have a very merry christmas and a very happy new year! By the way, it has been about two weeks since I have posted this comment! Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take care with your selection of references, especially for BLP info

Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! [1] [2] [3] [4] --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And thefamouspeople.com isn't reliable either, though you didn't use it in a BLP. [5] --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ronz It's been a year of different editors driving by O'Shea's article and changing it so I have sort of given up on it actually. But these fake sources are getting this information from somewhere real. Eventually a real source will show up on the actor, right? I mean, he's getting more popular and more work. In the meantime, can you look at this source for me and tell me if it's reliable? I got the pending change reviewer permission a couple of days ago, and I'm being very careful with it. I'm trying to find a source for this BLP, and you seem very knowledgeable on BLP sources. Oh, and yes, thanks for pointing out the one on Chris LeDoux. Rodeo is my area, and it looked real. I'll be spending more time checking new sources from now on.

Here's the source on Ranveer Singh: [6].

It would be much appreciated...thanks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it, and if anyone has, they've been removed without a trace. There are a lot of these celebrity statistic websites, and they're typically unreliable, even when they aren't scraping other websites including Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Any interest in PC reviewer?

Hey Dawnleelynn, I was wondering if you'd want the pending changes reviewer perm? It's not a big deal at all, but I thought it might be useful to you on the off chance you come upon any pending edits or pages that are PC protected. Feel free to peruse Wikipedia:Pending changes and let me know if it seems like something you might make use of. Cheers! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amorymeltzer Thank you for your message. I read through the page you linked WP:PEND, albeit even though I've looked through it before. I also read the HELP:REVIEWING page. And I do come across pages that are protected. So, I feel we all should contribute to help the encyclopedia. It sounds like this is one where I can w/o a huge commitment, so it's right up my alley. Sign me up! I shall peruse the policies until they are more firmly established in my memory... dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, glad to hear it. Let me know if you have any questions! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Generic template with links

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Thank you, that was fast! I will take a look at it in a bit. Just have some morning ritual stuff to catch up before doing wiki. :)) Have a great week! I also assume I can contact you if I have any questions. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Hi, I have got a pending changes on an article here where a Bot is proposing to remove a protection. There are two pending revisions, and btw, I don't know how to accept one but not the other. It's the Musikbot trying to remove {{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} on this article: Soup. Well, it had been there over an hour in a long list. Someone just cut the list way down. So, if it is gone by the time you see this, I'd still like to know what I should have done. Thanks a bunch! I mean, there will be the History. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding right away — I was out of town for a few days! It's been resolved, as far as I can tell, but for multiple edits see Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes#Reviewing_edits_by_multiple_users. Basically, it's a pain in the ass and it sucks, but do it carefully one at a time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer I appreciate your reply, belated or not. Most everybody goes out of town once in awhile. It can be very cathartic. I will review the content, and try it. I know who to ping if I need more help. Thanks much and have a great week! dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Hi Amory, hope you are doing well. I've been doing the pending changes reviewing for awhile now. It's getting easier as time goes on, and I gain experience. I'm also sometimes making content changes to make the article better. You know, for example a Date article now requires a citation to prove it. Most editors let that slide and most reviewers do too, so I add citations whenever I see them missing for both parties. Anyway, I'm glad you asked me to do the reviewing. In fact, I wanted to ask if you would grant me rollback permission. Another editor said Twinkle is great; I've been using that for a long time, but there a few things that Rollback just does better. No big deal either way. I am also going to start studying the policies for new page reviewing, but I'm not ready yet. I will ping you when I'm ready for that. That is a lot more policy to know then pending changes reviewer. Ok, thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad you're finding it useful! Rollback only really makes sense if you're regularly doing concerted antivandalism work, which I don't really see in your contribution history. If you're interested in getting started, you might want to check out WP:RCP. Twinkle makes it easy to warn users, so I'd recommend giving it another go.

All that being said, I think NPP does seem more up your alley. We could always use more patrollers! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Ok, I trust your opinion on these matters very much. I will look at the policy you recommended. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Hello again Amory. I thought about what you said, NPP being more up my alley. And also about my contribs history. I'm afraid I have filled up my recent contrib history with rating WikiProjects on talk pages. A lot of the rating tasks have to be paged through to get to the relevant tasks. I have created or expanded 55 articles. I do substantive articles, so I may not have created that many but they are lengthy articles. I have also done much wikignoming which includes adding content to articles and most every task that there is to do on existing articles. I was also a technical writer for 25 years. So, I think I could learn to do NPP well; but I wonder what you base your impression on? Were you able to browse past the rating tasks to see my relevant history? Also, I did take a look at recent changes; I'm understand how to do it but I'm not sure if it is right for me. I'll always do pending changes reviewing; it gets easier the more I do. Oh, yes I read the page about NPP you suggested. I'm going to read it again and all the pages it recommends. But I'm pretty sure now that I'd like to try it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, was busy then kept putting this off... I've granted this, see the [#NPP_granted|template below]]. Make sure to double check all the policy pages linked there and remember to AGF! I've also added you to the mailing list. Cheers! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer First of all, no worries about the delay. Yes, I plan to read the page you linked me earlier yet again and then veer off to all the pages it links to as well. Definitely taking on the mind set of professionalism here and AGF as you say. The page definitely emphasizes over and over again about how important it is to take care with newbies. Mailing list sounds good too. Thanks for the opportunity. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Just after you gave me the NPP permission, I had a super important legal matter I had to take care of for a week. I'm back & I stumbled on a new barrel racer article. It needed a tad work & wasn't reviewed. So I did & I marked it as reviewed today. It's my first article w/ NPP. I had to move the article title from the Early life section to the beginning and write a short intro. Now I will do more articles plus work on an article in my sandbox. If you want to check it for notability because it's not typical, please do, she hasn't been to the National Finals Rodeo let alone become a world champ; (which is in WP:NRODEO). Rather, she has special circumstances as she was in an accident and paralyzed and managed to ride again and is also a motivational speaker now. She's got lots of coverage out there when you search. Amberley Snyder Leaving you the option. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me! Sorry to hear about the issue, hope everything is okay! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Amory, yes all is fine now. It's more like 2 weeks and I didn't want to you to see no NPP activity for that long and think I had changed my mind. I plan to do the reading of the main NPP page again and then read the offshoot pages. I thought to ask you about Snyder because I hadn't read all the notability pages yet; it was just a fluke to see an unreviewed page in the rodeo area where I work. Thanks a bunch; have a great weekend! :)) dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Horn Africa vandalism

Hi, I'm informing you of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for pushing a social agenda on a high traffic page, it's under What is Blackness and why Wikipedia administrators are pushing it on the Horn Africa page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.172.141 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 31.168.172.141 What are you talking about? I'm just a reviewer with pending change permission who either approved or disapproved a pending change. I didn't push anything. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me what these trash blogs Why East African ignorance about the Horn hurts and Dear East-Africans, Don’t Hate And Deny Your Blackness have to do with the Horn of Africa? 31.168.172.141 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I had to step away from the computer for a bit. I went over and looked at the article. Also, another editor contacted me about the issue. It turns out I mistakenly accepted an edit that I meant to revert. I just went back and accepted the correction, and the unwanted content has been removed. Sorry about that. We all make mistakes. I am also new to using this pending changes permission this week. I will step up my guard from now on. Thanks for your patience. p.s. filing on the admin noticeboard was a bit overkill. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The ANI thread was closed by Black Kite with the rationale "Just disruption, and dealt with by pending changes." --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

Hi Dawnleelynn, I am just a little confused by your revert and summary here? You wrote "Removing similar unconstructive edit. Citations don't follow style in article.", however, you were in fact restoring the content that the IP reverted, not 'removing' anything? Was this in error or am I missing something? I am genuinely curious. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor Yes, I can see why you are confused. I just got the pending changes review permission this week. I could have sworn I was getting rid of the unconstructive edit. My bad as I told the IP editor in the message just above this one. It was a genuine mistake. I have gone over and corrected it, getting rid of the unwanted content. I will step up my guard in future. And I am always available on my talk page for anything to do with this article regarding permissions. Thank you for letting me know so I can learn from my mistake. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification and for resolving this. I am always around if you ever have any questions or need any help . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor Thanks for understanding. I may take you up on that offer sometime. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Congrats man. Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk A kitten, I love cats, thanks bud. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome brother. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Umm, sister who likes a lot of masculine sports and movies. :))

In response to your message: I am new to reviewing as well, so I'm not completely sure.

Dolfinz1972 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dolfinz1972 Thanks for responding. We will both just do the best we can then. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Reassessment

Thank you for the assessment upgrade. Frankly, it felt like the stuffing had been knocked out when the stub class appeared. Maybe now I can get around to working on the references.Verne Equinox (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Verne Equinox I understand, really, like in actual experience. Normally an editor of your stature can self assess; I have been told by by mentor montanabw that I can self-assess and that was over a year ago. In this case, though, I think it just was better coming from someone else. Finish up the outstanding issues, maybe do a once over copyedit, and you can change it to a B-Class for sure. And then, Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

About horse

Hi Dawnleelynn, Just stopping by to say hello. Finally visited your user page. So you like horses? I rode a horse for the first time ever for 4 hours in 2018 and I loved that old horse. It was so nice to me. I wished it was cheaper. Next time, I need to limit my riding time to 3 hours. :) SWP13 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SWP13 Welcome and thanks for stopping by. I do like horses and bulls too. I've been writing about the rodeo. I've written a couple articles about horses. I haven't ridden a horse since I was a child though. Pretty expensive, as you say! I'm glad you can do it. My mentor here, montanabw, knows a lot about horses and owns a few herself. She has helped me with editing and the policies here since I started editing. I saw that post on your talk page about having articles deleted. That's no fun. If you need someone to help save an article that's in AfD again, you can ping me to stop by and see if there's anything I can do. Hope you go riding again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

I don't know how my very small change to the psychopathy page could have been worded more transpersonally or impersonally. That is indeed how modern psychiatrists distinguish the one category from the other, and I am not sure why this small change was automatically erased. Any rationale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:6D5A:9490:5662:7E85 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am always happy to try resolve issues if I can with the pending changes. It was not automatically reverted; however, the page has protection. In the Psychopathy pending edit you submitted and I reverted I made a notation in the reversion that said "No source given." Your edit removed the source that was there in the previous revision and did not replace it with a new source. And there was no source at the end of your new content. If I missed something, please let me know? If you give me a source I'd be happy to accept it. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hailey Kinsel

Hello! Your submission of Hailey Kinsel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Cary Grant and Orry-Kelly

I was confused why you reverted the edit I made regarding the relationship between Orry-Kelly and Cary Grant and deemed it non-constructive. This relationship not only confirm that Grant is bisexual (and thus eligible for several LGBT tag), lasted a substantial amount of time (1920s to early 1930s), but affect their interaction professionally (Kelly was the costume designer of several of movies starring Grant) as well as personally (Grant attending Kelly's funeral). This is especially puzzling since Grant's brief heterosexual relationships with Betty Hensel, Maureen Donaldson and Victoria Morgan are deemed important enough to be kept on the page. Not to mention, the edit I made also mention Grant's suicide attempt after married Virginia. If there's any problems with the exact information included, I would be willing to change or cut out, but reverting every mention of the relationship is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8180:7010:6DDD:53F8:1FB7:A4FF (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. However, I am not one of the content editors of Cary Grant. I am a pending changes reviewer. I was following the consensus when determining what action to take on this pending change. As stated by the pending reviewer who came after me, you would be best served by taking your issue to the article talk page. Thanks... dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rodeo into National Finals Rodeo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) Thanks for the reminder, and I am glad you catch these things. I had problems with my computer. In fact, I just figured out that it was a device failure that was the issue. I should have done the attribution right away in the first place. There's actually two other articles that are affected, and I will make the copyright attribution in all of them shortly. I appreciate your diligence to copyright matters. I am also keen to tow the line in copyright matters. Thank you. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dawnleelyyn, and sorry about using a template rather than a personal note. I am super busy lately with copyright work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) The template is okay; I don't mind a bit. I know how busy you get over there. I have done the copyright attribution in the Edit Summary of the other two articles as well. I considered doing it in the talk pages, but the Rodeo article Events section was done piecemeal, and there isn't one specific Diff I could point to. Thanks again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hailey Kinsel

On 25 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hailey Kinsel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that professional world barrel-racing champion Hailey Kinsel won $433,333.33 in one day at the American Rodeo in February 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hailey Kinsel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hailey Kinsel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thomas D Mangelsen in DYK move issue

Yoninah (talk · contribs) Hi Yoninah. Another editor moved my article Thomas D Mangelsen to Thomas D. Mangelsen without notifying me or checking to see the status of the article (it's in the DYK queue). Now I cannot edit the nomination. And I have a feeling the DYKBot will try to leave credit to the old article name, not the new one once it runs. And that there will be other issues? Can you address my concerns? Does the move need to be reverted? Thank you if you can help. [7] dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I just recalled that Yoninah is usually offline by this time of day. I should have asked you in conjunction anyway regarding this matter above. Well, it's not urgent. But when someone has time for it, it would be nice to know. Thanks! Hope all is well with you all. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still here. What's the problem? Was the page move correct? If so, we'll just tweak the nomination template to reflect the page move. Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah The page move isn't necessarily incorrect, just someone else's preference. He added a period after the D. and didn't look at the talk page or anything else to see if the article was in any kind of process. I looked at policies and found none that state there must be a period. The policy he quoted MOS:INITIALS to say the period was required actually refers to the body of an article, not an article title. I pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves actually is the policy regarding article names. I could find no where in there that insists you use periods for initials. But, you obviously being here much longer than I probably know the policies better. My gut says you will probably say the move is appropriate and if so, go ahead and tweak the template. And the DKYUpdateBot will be able to follow the redirect as well, right? Thanks a bunch! I obviously trust you to do what is best... dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a logical move; the only time I've seen middle initials without periods is in British and Indian articles. I'm going to format the template now so the DYKbot will credit the correct page name. Best, Yoninah (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah Thanks so much. I've not been at my computer. I can now edit the nomination again. And it's good to know the bot will be able to credit the page correctly. I have recommended that the editor check the talk page in the future first before making major changes. The actual article name change was minor, the timing of the change was more of an issue. I knew you'd be able to adjust things. Thanks again, dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nominations for Thomas D. Mangelsen and Grizzly 399

I have comleted two reviews at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas D Mangelsen and noted some questions. Please respond there when you have time. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your pending changes review at Marketing

Hello Dawnleelynn, thank you for helping out with pending changes reviewing. But when accepting this edit you possibly overlooked a few issues: the edit merely repeats already included definitions just above the added content, and it is ill-formatted and mostly unsourced. Direct quotations for instance should not be added without a sufficiently specific inline reference. Most problematic however: the edit was misused to hide spam for an essay writing site (domycreativewritings.com).

Of course occasional errors happen to everyone, including myself :) - not a big deal. Just wanted to offer some tips to look for possible issues more closely in future reviews. GermanJoe (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

GermanJoe Thank you for the feedback. I always welcome constructive criticism on reviews I make with pending changes. It's why I don't hide my name, which is an option. I haven't been doing it a super long time, and some types of content reviews are the most difficult. This one got past me like you said. I have some takeaways from your feedback and a reminder to take my time doing them. I can't look at the edits as they have since been removed. Thanks again, I will strive to be more diligent. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men

Thank you for chipping back-in. Because the moral choices regarding the assessment, taking, and return of found property are a clear central plot device for the film "No Country for Old Men," it deserves mention. You understandably were bothered by the adding of a "See also section" which at that time was composed of topics that were vague or unjustified from any of the above text; as a tangent, they were understandably reverted. However, your last reversion did not pertain to the issue to which you ostensibly complained. Please justify your actions, or ameliorate any error. 71.9.232.163 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am responding to your message after doing a bit of research. I'm sorry you are upset. Pending changes reviewers are not content experts for the articles they review. Also including Braxton C. Womack as you pinged him too. Perhaps he can also help shed light on this matter. First of all, I would add that no matter what content you had provided in the theme section, you did not provide a source. Thus, your edit would not have been accepted in any case. Now, regarding the articles Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property and Finders, keepers being themes in this movie of lost or otherwise property, etc., neither of these articles mentioned the property being abandoned due to death. This is simply a case of property being found near murder victims and then taken by the protagonist. The ensuing pursuit is one of hunter and hunted. I read that bit about the hunting in the article. I can't find anything in the article that talks about the themes you mention or even in some other movie review sites. However, if you can find a source, I'm sure it should be added. The See Also would depend on that as well I assume. And, yes, I have seen the movie once. If it need be, we can contact a subject matter expert who edits the article regularly to assist. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your empathy. I'd generally think it prudent for all reviewers to selectively engage in material in which they are at least familiar; as the maxim goes, the uninformed voter is the worst. Regarding the substance of your reply, I think if you took a moment, you'd realize that you have assumed a lot, and are really splitting hairs. First, there is no reason to assume the true owner is dead as two people have hired competing hitmen to retrieve the property that was never exchanged when the deal went bad. I would not personally use the phrase "hunter and hunted," to entirely characterize the feud; one hitman wanted to strike a deal with the protagonist to end the pursuit, and the other seemed not a premeditated killer, but impetuously executed witnesses upon the callous whims of a coin-flip...but that is within discretion. The cat-and-mouse dynamics was a mechanism to continually force moral choice throughout the movie, but had the ancillary benefit of providing a guilty thrill to the children in the audience. I'd feel bad for anyone who saw a movie that won four Oscars, and only walked away with a cheap hunter-thriller.

As to splitting hairs, death is no distinction and is moot. According to common law regarding lost, mislaid, and abandoned property, the general principle that: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property, also applies specifically to the case of death. Needless to say, in the case of mislaid property the finder acquires no rights—and the ensuing probate, escheat, or asset forfeiture is none of the finder's literal business. Common sense ought to dictate that one does not get to keep the property of a dead person or neighbor they encounter! For the case of lost property, the finder is entitled to possession of the property against everyone except the true owner—who is dead. Nor does the property article need to explain that a dead person gets no special exception to have back long abandoned property—to even ask would be supernatural. In order to keep property and avoid the crime of theft by finding, a finder must exercise due diligence by taking steps to establish whether the object is genuinely abandoned, lost, or unattended. Applying this specific case, the protagonist needed to determine if or which of the two hitmen are representing the true owner, or if the mislaid property is the fruit of a crime. He chose to take the money away from the last surviving witness, and not place it in the interim care of the police or a bank and call a property attorney. Albeit, that would have resolved the issue, and we'd have a boring movie.

More to the profound core of thematic issue, is the law and realism in dealing with found property. On the one hand, many viewers strongly resonate with a reality that it is futile to try to return lost coins or a hundred dollar bill found in a parking lot to its true owner; but then there is the law. On the other hand, if you find 10 million in cash, you'd know there has to be an actively desperate owner—and there is also good cause to believe it was stolen. Add in the colliding cultural and legal mores across an international border, and a frontier that is functionally desolate of civil recourse. This central moral dilemma was deliberately written into the plot to make this a powerful multi-Academy Award winning movie. The protagonist could have given the money up to make the chase end, but he stands his ground to his ultimate death. As connecting as it was, this is not a new literary theme, finders, keepers is the subject of bestselling book Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea and is actually the cause of the legendarily senseless Hatfield-McCoy feud. Does a lawless property feud in rural America also resonate because it sounds so familiar? Now what do you do when you fuel a hope that the true owner is deceased?

Your sources contention is a rabbit hole in this particular case; literary criticism and rhetorical analysis can be heavily philosophical. There is no objective answer. Some say art is up to the individual viewer to decide meaning, in such case authorial intent is irrelevant and is impossible to truly know anyway. What the author believes now, may not be what he or she meant when the work was made. Just look no farther than interpreting your own childhood diary. Under that philosophy, it is a fool's errand to look to the web to prove meaning or obtain citation authority, and yet we have. There are many approaches to literary theory—and what a critic writes is really a reflection of the philosophy they applied. I'm not a fan of the illusion of a proper reference. This is case where a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, which justifies the policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This is not a bureaucracy and the rules are not the purpose of the community. That the movie depicts controversy arising from the possession of property is an obvious claim requiring no citation; it is no way exceptional or even controversial.

Hence, I think it should now be added to the thematic section of the article: The film depicts the grey areas, consequences, and realism in resolving misplaced property; the resulting feud from the protagonist's finders, keepers approach is a central plot device. 71.9.232.163 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I can see that this issue is very important to you due to the length of your response. Please understand that pending change reviewers all have to review articles that are not perfectly in their wheelhouse at times. Otherwise, there would be horrible backlogs. Regarding my reply, it is solely based on the article, your proposed edit, and the two Wikipedia articles on lost property and finders-keepers that you mentioned before. All of this content you supplied in your last reply is not included in the previous Wikipedia articles nor is it included in new articles or other source, so my last reply was limited to that information.

Now, most importantly, you still have not included sources, as in inline citations, for the proposed content for the article. Everything is moot until you include sources. Just look at the article and see that there are inline citations for most of it, including the Themes section. Any way, even if there are some sections that are unsourced, that is not a basis for adding more unsourced work to the article, especially in a section that is already completely sourced. I have to say that I think this issue has gone above my pay grade; it is just up to me to see that you get the article sourced. Now I'm going to suggest that you post a message here: Talk:No Country for Old Men (film). An editor that works on the article regularly should respond. Direct them back to this message as well as talking to them there. Perhaps they can figure out how all of this information fits into and supports the proposed theme. Let me know if you don't get a response in a reasonable time frame. But I've got the article on my Watchlist. Thanks for your patience. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Because of the profound thought provoked by the film's high-stakes ownership of found property, the Wikilinks added to the "see also section" were entirely appropriate. It is also patently obvious that the movie depicts controversy arising from the possession of property. In any case, the rules are not the purpose of the community, and reviewers may be required to slow down and actually use the grey matter between their ears. I'm not sure we are better off doing a big job poorly. The cascading resources needed to defend a naive precedent do not save time. Haste makes waste, and discretion is the better part of valor. 71.9.232.163 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for accepting my contribution in the Popularity and impact of KPOP in the Philippines. It will help me pass my case analysis assignment. You're a lifesaver. Dhemiegoddess (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas D. Mangelsen

On 10 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas D. Mangelsen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen took a photograph of Grizzly 399 which he dubbed "An Icon of Motherhood", making her the most famous mother grizzly in the world? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas D. Mangelsen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Grizzly 399

On 10 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grizzly 399, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen took a photograph of Grizzly 399 which he dubbed "An Icon of Motherhood", making her the most famous mother grizzly in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grizzly 399. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grizzly 399), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

NPP granted

Hi Dawnleelynn. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Dawnleelynn,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 at Women in Red

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hero Fiennes Tiffin correction

Dear Dawn: I see you've been a (highly regarded) contributor / editor to the Wiki for Hero Fiennes Tiffin: thank you. I'm Hero's father, George Tiffin, and have been trying to figure out how to correct a small error in the name / title of the page in question. Hero's actual full name is Hero Beauregard Faulkner Fiennes Tiffin – with NO hyphen between the two last names. I realise that changing the title of the entry itself is more complex than merely editing the text it contains, and wondered if you could guide me - or, indeed, make the change yourself if you find time? I know Hero would be very grateful. If this edit requires a citation, you will find him correctly listed on his IMDb page (included in the current Wiki). With thanks and all best wishes, George Tiffin (I'm not sure why the four tildes are required for these comments, but am including them here just in case...) GT1963 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your dilemma regarding the article on Hero Fiennes-Tiffin. As a pending changes permissions editor, I have edited a lot of articles. I see that I edited this article one time after resolving a pending changes issue because I happened to find a source for the subject's birthday. Other than that, I have no familiarity with the subject. If you can believe it , I have not even watched any of the Harry Potter movies or other movies mentioned. As you stated, there does have to be some proof of the name change being proposed, especially in the case of a biography of a living person. I will attempt to contact the editor(s) who are very familiar with the article regarding this matter. Also, IMDb is not considered a reliable source as anyone can edit it. Btw, the four tildes are how your message gets signed with your username. Thanks for your patience. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Avoding misunderstanding about WP:Notability in CfD nominations

• Categories get nominated to CfD and need to be WP:DEFINING
• Articles get nominated to AfD and need to be WP:NOTABLE

Thank you for the recent contributions to the Categories for Discussion (CfD). Even if we disagree on specific nominations or the WP:OCAWARD guideline, it still helps the encyclopedia to have more perspectives.

In the World Golf Hall of Fame discusion, you mistakenly indicated that I claimed WP:NOTABILITY in my rationale for deleting a category, I raised and withdrew concern, and you confirmed it was an honest error. No big deal, we all make mistakes and I thought we could go back to respectfully disagreeing on the category discussions.

But since then, with several other of the CfD nominations I initiated, your lenghthy replies involve notability of the the articles rather then WP:DEFINING of the categories. To me at least, this seems to imply that I'm either attempting to delete articles or that I am using WP:NOTABILITY as a rationale for deleting categories when neither one is my intent. I don't expect us to agree on categorizing awards but I'd love to interact more clearly and succintly.

Can I structure my nominations to be less confusing? Do you have some questions about my nomininations in general that would clear things up? Is there something I'm not thinking of to avoid confusion in CfD?

Thanks. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

RevelationDirect Just a note, I'm working through a few issues first before replying. I'm not ignoring you. I do want to work things out the best we can.dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

RevelationDirect Ok, let's get started. We'll start with the notability basics:

• In the golf discussion, the mistake I was admitting to was thinking that your paragraph laying out your reasoning for deleting the category was part of your rationale. I realized it was not after your message and let you know.
• I never intended to imply that you were intending to delete articles at any time, so let's get that one out of the way.
• Notability is about more than just creating or deleting articles.
• Notability applies to all articles (not just the ones justified by GNG). WP:WHYN
• For instance, did you know that the notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables? WP:NOTESAL WP:LISTN
• Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. WP:ARTN

Regarding the subject of a hall of fame category:

• In WP:DEFINING it mentions that "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having"
• What are the reliable sources in your view for a hall of fame category?
• What does the external hall of fame have to do with the category's definingness? I can't find anything in the category policies to support this except reliable sources...however...it just says that the reliable sources define the subject. It doesn't say anything about going through the sources and describing them and making judgments about the hall, such as the hall only echos fame, for example. And this is where I say you are making a case on something the policy never intended. The hall has been made into an article, so the subject is notable, and its sources are already reliable. (So this is where notability could play a part if this makes sense...probably the only place left that it could.)
• For another example, what does the induction method of a hall of fame have to do with the definingness of the hall of fame category?
• This question is on a different track, but I wonder. "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" - I see mentions of whether an induction is mentioned in the lead or not. However, this quote only mentions if it is appropriate or not, not if is there or not, is it in some other policy I missed?

General Thoughts:

• The category system is a convoluted one, and many others beside me have voiced this opinion. I am doing my best to learn it. If I make a mistake, I will correct it. I will be fixing my lengthy messages in the CfD discussions soon. Yes, I went way overboard with the length. Sorry you thought I was indicating a different notability argument than I meant.
• I have figured out some of the notability guidelines don't fit in there the way I thought they did. I already gave an example of this in the marine discussion. I now know that the induction is supposed to be mentioned in the inductee articles to be defining per the "Article" section under WP:CAT and that the notability guideline WP:NEXIST that says this same thing does not need to be done does not apply.
• Yes, you mentioned that we don't agree about WP:OCAWARD. It is because it doesn't actually mention halls of fame. I did a search throughout that page's archives and only found one hall of fame mentioned ever.
• My mentor montanabw and I had become concerned with the amount of halls that could be deleted, your talk page mentions a 90 percent figure. But I also want you know that I am not against any being deleted either. And I don't want spend all my time on CfD discussions, so I hope we can come to better understandings. Again, I'm sorry for the frustration my earlier messages caused, and I will strive to be more clear and concise in the future.

I hope all of this is clear. But if something is not clear, please ask first. It is all said with good intentions. And you don't have to reply to it all at once either. Take your time. Thanks, dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'll give some additional thoughts later when I have more time but I did want to mention one thing about CFD etiquette now since you mentioned you were reviewing your earlier posts in CFD. Generally, when you change what you wrote--especially when others have already replied to it--the prefered method is to strikethru your comments (example) so that later readers can understand the flow without looking through the edit history. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Good thought about strikeout. I was actually having trouble finding it in source view yesterday which was weird. I did think of one more thing I forgot to mention. I do think that a hall of fame that is in a subject-specific notability guideline, which makes it able to give its inductees notability for an article might be more defining. However, there are awards that also give their subjects notability, which I would never consider making into a category, for instance, all of the world champions from the National Finals Rodeo and there are seven of those every year going back to 1929, one for each rodeo event...If you saw this list, I would probably not categorize anything in it: List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Overly wordy reply

I meant to write a couple sentences but I got carried away:

• Notability of Articles vs. Definingness of Categories: Sometimes it's easier to understand a concept if you look at extreme examples: We have notable, well sourced articles on Tourism in Paris and Car accidents because those topics are well sourced and likely to be of interest to readers. It would be preposterous though to have Category:People who have visited Paris or Category:People who survived car accidents. This misunderstanding comes up a lot: the editor who saw List of people who have been pied and created this deleted category was acting in good faith, but getting hit in the face with a pie isn't defining and it puts a bunch of people in the same category as Phyllis Schlafly and they all deserve better. (-; The vast majority of articles and list articles will not be WP:DEFINING enough to the other articles in a potential category.
• Award Categories: In general awards are especially prone to this "I have a list and that automatically means it's time for a category" misunderstanding. The category clutter this creates is breathtaking: take a look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article and keep in mind CFD already cut that list about in half. We routinely look at why the award was issued to determine definingness, even those from countries. I consider awards to be clearly defining when they are a career capstone in that industry: Academy Award, Pullitzer, Olympic medal and, yes, Grammy Hall of Fame and Baseball Hall of Fame. Now I understand you think of halls of fame more a joining a museum organization than an award, but that just moves the issue from WP:OCAWARD to WP:OCASSOC which has traditionally been a much tougher subtype of WP:NONDEFINING.
• Halls of Fame: The 90% figure was from another editor and I nominate halls of fame individually or in small categories because I go into each with an open mind and take a careful look at each one. That being said, I find that lifetime achievement awards (or lifetime achievement "associations") tend to be much less defining because they just reflect the earlier accomplishment for which the biography article is already categorized. For instance when an Canadian wins a medal at the Olympics, within minutes a proud Canadian will categorize them under Category:Olympic medalists for Canada. Inevitably adding them to the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame a few years later (and it is inevitable) is redundant. I could do a better job in my nomination of calling out the WP:OVERLAPCAT guideline at play here though.
• List Articles: Another thing I could better is how I talk about lists because I think this misunderstanding was my fault. Whenever I nominate a category under WP:OCAWARD, the first question those who *agree* with me is usually along the lines of "Pulling together all these names is a lot of work so how can we make sure we don't lose this information if there's not already a list article." So I pre-emptively say "the list is already here" or "I created the list" here. I never intended to imply that the presence of the list was a reason to delete or to keep a category per WP:CFL. I can see how it could read it that way.

I'll work on making my nominations clearer going forward on the last two points. Thanks so much for striking some of your CFD comments that may have misunderstood parts of my nomination! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me on my talk page or here and we can share more long posts. Then you can use what you learn to make a short knockout punch to one of my CFD nominations. (Editors there definitely favor brevity more than we do, haha.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Another wordy reply

• Long posts never bother me. You should see some of the ones in my talk page archive, especially when I was first learning to use Wikipedia and how to create articles. I started creating articles right away. I do have a tendency to be verbose, and I am constantly working on becoming more concise. I got a little zealous with this category issue in the beginning. Copy/Paste is dangerous for me!
• I like your examples in the notability versus definingness of categories bullet point. And I absolutely agree with it. When montanabw and I were overhauling the Rodeo categories, we absolutely tried to keep it simple and concise. We both watch over those categories. I also have all of the Rodeo articles on my Watchlist. She has most of them too. We both are pretty stringent on creating more categories for the most part.
• Ok, regarding the award categories bullet point. Yeah, that's definitely a crazy train wreck article on Eisenhower. I come across some too, but not quite that bad. Here's the rodeo article that is the largest category soup for us. Earl W. Bascom. He also is the most decorated cowboy in rodeo to date. He is notable for an article through one of those event world championships. Then there's a heap of HoFs. The hall of fame honor that makes him notable, though, is the Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame. I didn't create this article, but have updated it. I always try to mention the ProRodeo Hall of Fame and Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame in the lead, one or the other; otherwise they are notable by a world championship.
• Regarding halls of fame that seem to just reward existing awards. I understand your example about the Canadian Olympic medalists. And I would even agree that might be true of some halls of fame. But that of itself doesn't immediately make them non-defining, although sometimes it would. I also know of halls of fame that choose inductees based on more than just a world championship for example. Maybe I'm spoiled in rodeo. But the rodeo HoFs are picky, there are no formulas, and they mostly look for more than just championships.

You might want to read this page on the Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame website: [8]

- Achievements WILL NOT allow a person to be inducted into the Hall of Fame in any category.

- In short, the person has become Legendary in his/her support, achievements and contributions to Canadian Pro Rodeo.

Example: using Earl Bascom again 1984 Earl Bascom

Now regarding the ProRodeo Hall of Fame. They are very selective, no formula. For example, there is a Bucking Bull of the Year award going back to 1974. :Yet the HoF has only inducted seven bulls, the last one in 2007. With horses in their various events, they are also very selective in their inductions. Same is true with people. But when they do induct, for instance with Charmayne James [9] it's not because she won world barrel racing championships. It's because she won 10 in a row. And the rest of her not awardable accomplishments are listed in her induction page.

And then is the PBR. In 2017, after a world champion bull contender named Pearl Harbor died without a title, they switched the bull they were going to give the Brand of Honor to and gave it to him. The bull w/o any awards now is notable. [10]

The PBR also honors other cowboys with the Ring of Honor who are not bull riders, but are rodeo cowboys.

• List articles - Thanks for explaining. We are all good on this now.

Sorry it took so long to reply. There were so many more examples, but not to overwhelm you. I did want to respond on those CfDs first yesterday. And I needed to cut down on my wordiness here a lot. And I can only do the harder thought requiring tasks so long each day. But thanks because your reply was really so helpful! dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Dawnleelynn,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for War Paint (horse)

On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article War Paint (horse), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ProRodeo Hall of Fame bucking horse War Paint was insured for $10,000 with Lloyd's of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/War Paint (horse). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, War Paint (horse)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for responding to my query, guiding me, fixing my mistakes, reviewing my articles and generally going the extra mile. You are a diligent wikipedian, a patient teacher and an awesome human being. Keep rocking! Usedtobecool TALK 17:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Are you sure you only used to be cool? You seem pretty cool to me now. I am happy to help, really. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mid-states Rodeo Association logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mid-states Rodeo Association logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sections

Well done for updating all those AQHA Hall of Fame links! Just looking at some of the QH article I wonder if they might benefit from being divided into sections in a standardised way. With TB racehorses my default arrangement is BACKGROUND (everything that happened before the horse enters training), RACING CAREER (broken down into seasons) and RETIREMENT/ STUD RECORD/ BREEDING RECORD (everything that happened after the horse stopped racing). I wonder if we could break down the QH articles in a similar way. Obviously many top QH aren't racehorses but you could swap out "Racing career" for "Show career", "Rodeo career" etc. What do you think? Tigerboy1966  07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but I am working on the list alphabetically. So, I am on the letter M. I am hoping to finish this project today, or tomorrow at the latest. I am using the Checklinks tool and actually trying to fix all the broken links in the article. In the meantime, we could discuss this a bit.

I like your idea. I use similar sections in the bucking bull articles. Of course, some of the articles are stubs, so they would have to be expanded before sections would make sense there. Any articles that don't have infoboxes should have them added too.

Another thought I had is this is a good opportunity to add a mention of the halls of fame to the lead or move them there. The CfD is still live and that is one of the criteria for Wikipedia:Defining. Barbara L, Chicado V, and a few others are already sorted into these similar sections you have mentioned. Are you thinking all QH articles and not just the ones in the hall of fame? I would imagine you have a way of identifying them all. Anyway, these articles already sectioned can be good examples to follow. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I would start with the Hall of Famers as they are likely to have enough content to warrant being broken down a bit. I will start at the top of the category and try to remember to mention the HoF in the lead. I'll do ten or so and then give it a break to see what you think. Tigerboy1966  16:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966 Hi! Oh, I forgot to ping you last time, my bad. I finished the horses last evening. Peter McCue seems to be missing from their web site induction pages so I sent them a message. There are only 10 people in the hall who have articles so I thought I'd do them quickly. As for the horses, some HoF are in the lead already, some you can just move them from lower down into the lead. I'm sure you you'll figure it out. Anyway, sounds like a good start. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966 It took me longer to do the people but now they are done. I looked at the five articles you sectioned off. So did Ealdgyth. I'm sure she has most of them on her Watchlist. Her most frequent change was to spell honour to honor as American. The only major change I made was to Blondy's Dude, the cutting and reining section was under Rodeo, but those events are not part of rodeo. So I changed the section name. I edited/added a bit to Baby Doll Combs but it had nothing to do with your edit; I was just fixing some things to do with his rodeo career. You were really quick and the outcome looks awesome. Did you want me to do some but start from the bottom up so we can meet in the middle? I can't devote my entire Wikipedia time to it... but it definitely doesn't take as long as the fixing the broken links did. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank for the corrections.I hope you can see how cutting would look like a rodeo event to the non-specialist: there are cattle and cowboy hats involved! I'll work my way down the list, just doing two or three when I can. Tigerboy1966  05:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerboy1966: In the very beginning I thought cutting was a rodeo event too! :) Okay, sounds good. Don't hesitate to ask if you need anything. Thanks so much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Dawnleelynn,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier

Hi, I just noticed your revert. I think you may be interested in User_talk:Citation_bot#"Removed_URL_that_duplicated_unique_identifier". Nemo 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nemo_bis Thank you, I came to understand what it is doing since then actually. I've even seen them in use in other topics now. I've no strong objection to it now that I see what it does. However, you may want to check the bot out because there are 15 doi links in this document and it only changed two urls. I would think let's be consistent if using it in an article and make them all uniform. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings

File:EPCOT Roger Rabbit.jpg	Nice to meet you ~
	~ It is a pleasure to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Howdy and thank you for the greeting. It is nice to meet you too. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A goat for you!

Thanks for your support. You are awesome. A happy goat says me-e-e-eh!

SWP13 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Awww, that is so sweet of you. Just glad I could help. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:National Reining Horse Association Hall of Fame.jpg

The page File:National Reining Horse Association Hall of Fame.jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image was an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links were updated.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smart Little Lena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progeny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

CCI update

--💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't finish it sooner. "The next few days" my ass. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji That actually wasn't too painful. It's actually a huge relief to have this thing closed after about a year now. No worries about any delay recently. As I said, it's been a long time anyway. Which is fine, because Nikkimaria originally wasn't going to do the cleanup, so it was helpful that she did it as an aside to her other very busy roles. Thank you so much! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Dawnleelynn,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WiR stub contest

Hi there, Dawnleelynn, and thanks for participating in the contest. I've just been checking article size and see that Carol Rose (horse breeder) is too short with only 710 characters or 122 words of running text. The others look fine.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Hi thanks for that. Actually, I'm having a problem with measuring. The DYIcheck tool said I had not enough content but it didn't count the Honors section while I was still in draft mode. The ORES is not there in draft mode. So when I got it into mainspace, it said Start, and that I had approximately 1,500 characters which was over the 1,000 limit. So I painstaking removed content bit by bit until ORES said I had a stub and the character count was in compliance...I have plenty of content I can add back, believe me. What tool are you using? There was some instruction that said ORES would be used when size was in question. Thanks, dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. ORES does not seem to be reliable for measuring length. There are various tools for measuring readable prose size. The easiest to access is probably Xtools article info. Just look at the info under prose.--Ipigott (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Ok, I see that and used it on Rose's article. I will adjust her article so that it is the right length for a stub in a little while. Thanks a bunch. Oh, good I see it works on userdrafts too. This will definitely stop me from spinning some wheels. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott I don't think the Xtools tool is working correctly right now. I have reduced my draft article two times now, and the prose character count has stayed the same. What is the second best tool to use when it's not functional? Thanks... dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've checked all you new stubs and they are all fine, most of them with word counts in the 160s. For article size, I use the script in User:Dr pda/prosesize. In order to use it, you have to add it to your user profile, as explained in the instructions. I suggested the Xtools option because it works without installing anything. I have found it reliable although I have not tested it out on a given article after several reductions. Your problem might be that you need to empty your cache.--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Thank you. I was working on 2 userdrafts last evening. The initial character prose count was correct from Xtools but then would not update. Later on, I saw messages from the tool about delayed response so a busy Friday night? I have no problem using scripts. I used the script this morning on the 2 user drafts from last night. Oh yeah, I did try emptying the cache but no go. Thanks, the new tool is great! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Morning!

Hi, DLL - I'm heading to the All American Quarter Horse Congress and was wondering if you can find some time to do the pedigrees for Freckles Playboy and Marion’s Girl? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme Hi! No problem, happy to. I'll have them done in a couple hours after I do some errands. How exciting about the Congress! I assume you want the same type of pedigree structure as Dual Peppy and not the block type some articles have. :))

Atsme I know you are probably super busy today, but this will be here for you when you come back. I finished the pedigrees. I also tried to wikilink all of the horses. Many I already knew. But I also did a search on on them to find others. I assumed the article Wimpy P-1 is the same Wimpy listed in Marion Girl's pedigree. Also, Old Sorrel came up three times in Marion's Girl; I wikilinked them all. But is the rule just to link only the first instance? And last, some of Marion's Girl's pedigree had missing cells. I had to put something in there or the pedigree was screwed up. I just put "Not available". Let me know if there is standard content that is usually inserted in this case. And let me know if I can do anything else to help on the articles while you are away. One last thing: when I offered to help with pedigrees I meant to mention I can also help with filling tables as long as they are a reasonable size. Have a blast there! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ms dawnleelynn. Good job on the pedigrees and cats. Your collaboration is very much appreciated. In fact, I'm going to be working on and creating several more articles in much the same way so please feel free to include me on your watchlist if you're of the mind and have the time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme I'm glad. Yes, I can definitely assist in several more articles. I follow your User page. To see what you are doing, I can follow your Contribs. Is there any other way to follow your edits? Anyway, happy to to do it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Current projects

Atsme So, Women in Red started this 3 month stub contest, and I joined. It's creating stubs and destubbing them, but not destubbing your own in the same month. Anyway, I have done stubs from world champion barrel racers, rodeo halls of fame, esp. the main one, and the Cowgirl Hall of Fame. I am not really concerned with winning. It's forcing me to write more concisely, summarize content better, and leave puffery out completely. It's a good exercise. It won't interfere with other projects, including yours. And I'm still working on bucking horses. I also wrote stubs for two AQHA horsewomen. Next one I'm going to do is Sheila Welch. If you have any you'd like to see done, now is the time to ask. I will write stubs in October and attempt to destub all of them in November/December. You can look at my user page to see what's done as I've written stub next to them. Ones of interest to you that I've done are [[Carol Rose (horse breeder}|Carol Rose and Carol Harris, again not to work on it or review, just a heads up. I also wrote a short article on Star Plaudit, not for the contest. There's limited source on him. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If you will, please focus on all the rodeo and various other performance events. I've been working on the NCHA riders/horses and we may end up tripping over each other. As you can see, I've been creating stubs on riders, women like Kay Floyd, etc. and the horses, then going back and expanding them. I don't work on rodeo where there are many women who have not received the attention they deserve, and I don't work on other breeds of horses but Quarter Horses - Thoroughbreds, Hunter-Jumper, American Saddlebreds, Arabians, Appaloosas, Paints and the like need help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme You have a good point. I'll stay out of cutting. I saw where I misunderstood the hall of fame division because it was laid out that way on their website - the links at the top. But you knew better. My offer still stands though, if you want to see any particular parties in rodeo have an article, human or livestock. :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Dawnleelynn - my health issues have taken priority over the holidays and I don't foresee us conflicting with any article creations in the near future. I think perhaps a better way is to simply communicate with each other to make sure we are not inadvertently creating the same articles under different names, or whatever else could go wrong. Thank goodness WP has no deadlines, so there's plenty of time. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season!! Best wishes & happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

NCHA Halls of Fame

Atsme I noticed that there are still two halls of fame that have not been added to Wikipedia: Non-Pro Hall of Fame and Youth Hall of Fame. This is kind of thing where data entry comes in handy too. Just let me know if you'd like them added. You might need to add some of the leading text though. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added the Non-Pro Rider HoF - neither division is big enough to spin-off just yet. We don't need a Youth HoF - actually, it was Fram who was quite insistent about not including Youth Olympic qualifiers or National Champions, regardless of the Olympic sport they qualified in. He nominated several of the BLPs I created or expanded for AfD, and they were deleted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme Yes, I understand how the non-pro works now. Thanks. :) I forgot to ask about the Horse of the Year initially, but you know about it I'm sure and have already decided what to do; no need to explain that to me too. Full speed ahead! I'll be over here working. Also, I had a not so great encounter with Fram myself about a year ago. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WiR stub contest winner

Winner: New stubs: Women in Red stub contest, October 2019

Congratulations, Dawnleelynn, with 50 new articles, you are the winner of the new stubs section of the October contest. I suggest you include this award on your user page.--Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Hmm, my first WiR contest. Very nice. But the real fun was doing all those articles. Thanks for the userbox; I will surely add to my User page. I will see which ones I can destub this month. Thank you very much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Dawnleelynn,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hall of Great Westerners, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Evans, John Clay and George Grant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hall of Fame: spam?

Hello, I noticed you added a "Hall of Fame" induction to quite a few articles. You are not a new account and you seem to have wider interests than just this museum, so I am hesitant to revert all the additions and warn you about spam, but I hope you can appreciate that this looks a little more like spam than like good-faith additions? I am not sure about the threshold for inclusion here, but I do know that, e.g. for films we do not list every single accolade and honor received, because so many of them are local and non-notable. Is this cowboy museum notable enough for a Wikipedia article? It does not have one currently? What would be the rationale for keeping mention of this accolade in articles? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elizium, it's definitely not spam. It's a highly prestigious western and cowboy museum with several awards and three halls of fame. Mr. Kevin Costner attended a function regarding his induction into the Hall of Great Western Performers. Here's the web site: [11]. Here's the link to its eight awards and halls of fame: [12]. Here's the article about Kevin appearing: [13]. Please ask me any other questions you need to. Most of these inductions I am adding today are for deceased individuals. Thanks for asking first. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, given that these are historical inductions and past historical figures (I first noticed the activity on Eusebio Kino) I can't really think of an objection to it. It's not like John Wayne will be racking up dozens of cowboy hall-of-fame inductions here. One more question, just of idle curiosity: does the museum have third-party coverage in WP:RS? i.e. would it survive a notability test and be eligible for an article? Just wondering. I am satisfied with your response as it already is. Elizium23 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they really are historical figures for the most part. There are quite a few with citation needed templates, so in that case adding a hall of fame actually helps out that article. That's funny about John Wayne. The museum would 100 percent pass a notability test. The current article National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum has only 5 references. But if I wanted to add more, there would be a long supply. Anyway, I can see how it would seem strange me doing so many additions at once. I am actually not happy about this. I added the inductees to the article yesterday and had no idea so many of them would have articles. I won't be doing this type of mass adding again, believe me. Thanks very much though for buzzing me first. You had the best intentions in mind. :) Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved round robin

Hi Dawn, moved your rodeo hall of fame article to mainspace. It’s the WP:PRIMARY topic so I put all the other on a dab page. I haven’t done a round robin move in a while, so I kind of messed stuff up. But I’ll clean up the leavings. Figured better me than you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Montanabw:, even though I replied elsewhere, I wanted to reply here as well just to close the loop. Everything is perfect! Thanks, dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WiR stub contest winner

Winner: Destubbing: Women in Red stub contest, November 2019

Congratulations, dawnleelynn, with 20 destubbed articles, you are the winner of the destubbing section of the November contest. I suggest you include this award on your user plage.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you so much. It's been fun participating in this 3 month destub contest. I still have approximately 10 stubs I could destub in December. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 08:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 16:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Dawnleelynn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Dawnleelynn
	Hi Dawnleelynn, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Dawnleelynn: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)