Open main menu

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!Edit


The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!Edit

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives

New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

-- Hi Ipigott. Thanks for the note on my talk page about WiR. I created a new page recently (I found the name in the WiR list of articles to be created), but it's been flagged as potentially not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I was wondering if you had any advice. Thanks. Woofboy (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Woofboy: The article was tagged when you first created it without inline sources. You have now vastly expanded it with rich referencing from secondary sources. I have therefore removed the tag and given it a positive review. The article is certainly fully in line with the goals of Women in Red and the notability requirements of Wikipedia. I hope you will be writing many more along similar lines. The main advice I can give you is to make sure there are at least two secondary sources before you add articles to mainspace. You might also be interested in looking through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you experience any further difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for creating so many articles about castles in Luxembourg!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Zigzig20s. You should come and see them some day. It's quite a time since I worked on those articles. They could probably do with some updating. Thanks too for all your additions to the talk pages. Perhaps Vianden Castle deserves a C class. I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:Ipigott. I have been trying to add an RfC, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red might be interested in, but have found the instructions there to be incomphrehensible. I see you do some curating of that page. Would you be able to add the RfC [1]? Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
Xxanthippe: Thanks for seeking my assistance but I'm sorry to say, I have never created an RfC. In most cases, I think matters relating to a biography are best discussed on the article's talk page, as seems to be the case here. Nor do I understand why you think this article would be of interest to Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC).

Email sentEdit

I have sent you a source I finally secured that I need help with. It is in German, and photocopies of the book, thus untranslatable via machine. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SusunW I'm afraid I have not received your emal. You can contact me directly at ipigott [at] yahoo [dot] com.--Ipigott (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That's where I sent it. Maybe the problem is that I sent you all the pages at once. Maybe I shall try again with just the first two. If you get that, then I'll send the next batch. Unless you can access the link. SusunW (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you should send me the link.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I resent a 3rd time without any of the images, with only the link. Please let me know if you can access it. SusunW (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't received anything at all. Are you sure you are spelling my name correctly? All my other emails seem to be coming in as normal.--Ipigott (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: May I also suggest you make sure you provide a subject and start your message with some normal text. Emails which start with a url are often deleted as spam.--Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This is totally weird. I have your e-mail saved in my contacts and we have corresponded before. I have a normal title: RE: sent you files via WeTransfer I'll try copy and pasting the message into WP contact e-mail. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: I think I've done what I can with this for the time being. Let me know if you need further help or clarifications.--Ipigott (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You are totally amazing. I so appreciate your help. Thank you! I have written to the librarian who initially responded to my query on Getzova to see if they have other materials which might clarify where she was originally from, who her parents were, etc. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, you will see that I have touched nothing today. Some weird automatic computer update totally made my new computer unusable for most of the day and I have spent hours on line with remote technicians trying to undo the damage from their system update. Grrrrrr. I am having a glass of wine and writing off this day. Tomorrow, I shall look at Getzova. SusunW (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── New computers can be a problem. I've been working on this laptop for about two or three years and have not had any serious problems. Let's hope I can continue... On Getzova, I think the problem might simply be that her home town moved from one country to another during her lifetime with changes resulting in her country of birth, etc. Let's see what other sources reveal.--Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Can you read Hebrew? thanks for doing the jewish pedia..

Advogato2 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the goat, Advogato2. I thought Chinese was your language. No, I don't read Hebrew but can just about cope with Yiddish. For Hebrew I need Google translate.--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)



Please look at this edit. En-dashes are used in ranges of numbers. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Michael Hardy: Thanks for taking an interest in the article on Johanna Piesch, bringing my attention to this rule and making the necessary changes. While I consistently try to use the correct dashes in date sequences, I did not realize until now that there was also a rule for pages. This is indeed the first time anyone has noticed my errors in references to page ranges for books and journals, but then I do not often write about mathematicians. I must have made hundreds of similar errors over the past 12–13 years, especially when copying from other sources. Unfortunately, it would probably take me months to go back over all the articles as I don't have an en dash on my Danish keyboard and would have to use the time-consuming wiki markup. It seems to me, this is the kind of thing a bot could be trained to do. I've just discovered, btw, that I can add the en dash by using the left-hand Alt key and typing 0150 on the number pad. But that takes time too.--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please signEdit

Hi! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos (many of them from WWII, others of cosmonauts, women aviators, and historic events) for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Many of the images would be very useful to the WiR project. Also, please do spread the word to other Wikipedians. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: The Months of African Cinema Continues….Edit


Thank you very much for signing up to participate in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 200 articles created in over seven (7) languages! The figures soars to up to a thousand, if Wikidata entries are included. Furthermore, there have been about 5 in-person gatherings of Wikipedians in different countries across the world to create articles about African(a) cinema!

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

  • Article suggestions can be found here. You can also add to this list.
  • Some notable reliable sources for African cinema can be found here. Again, this list needs expansion.
  • Interested in Wikidata translation? check out the Occupation Drive, which is being led by Wiki Loves Women, in support of the contest and the project!
  • Please remember to list articles you have created or improved in the Article Achievements section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked.

Thank you once again for being part of this global event!

Kind regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Primary source guidelinesEdit

Hi Ipigott! Thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. I am working on an article for a writer I recognized on the WIR list from the October science fiction & fantasy jam, and I've realized I don't fully understand when Wikipedia standards deem primary sources appropriate (if ever). I have read several times that I shouldn't use information from her own website, but is that a hard-and-fast rule? What if I directly quote her on an opinion/outlook/approach? And what about personal information other sources might not have? I've only found her birthdate on her website, but would it be better to leave it out? (This is what I'm working on: Liz Bourke draft). CactusPlum (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

CactusPlum: For notability to be established, you need to have at least two secondary sources describing the achievements of the person covered in some detail. These should not be directly associated with the subject, for example publishers, personal blogs or websites. Newspapers covering the person you are writing about are often a good source. At the moment, apart from the awards pages, virtually all your sources are directly related to Liz Bourke. Winning a major award is considered adequate for the inclusion of an article and it looks to me as if BSFA (2013) and Hugo Fan Writer (2014) come into this category. Once notability has been established, you can then draw on one or two primary sources but at the moment you have far too many. You will find futher explanations in our Primer for creating women's biographies. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much for taking the time to help me! I'll work on it. CactusPlum (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Women in IcelandEdit

 On 16 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Women in Iceland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first woman voted in as head of state says she would not have got her job if women in Iceland had not walked away from theirs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Women in Iceland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Women in Iceland), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Ipigott. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome and linksEdit

Thanks for the messages you sent and the links. The Wikipedia Adventure is exactly what I needed to get started.

Are articles about women in red done from start to finish by a single person? I'm not sure I want to actually write the article, but I am very interested in the research and formatting the article and references.

I hope I did this message correctly, starting a new section.

--Aurornisxui (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Aurornisxui: Well done, your message was just as it should be. Many of the women's biographies are initially developed by one person but most of them are subsequently expanded by others. As a newcomer, you will probably find it easier to make short additions to existing articles, adding any necessary references. As you gain experience, I would suggest you create a new biography in your user space or sandbox. When you are reasonably happy with it, you could let me know and I (or other members of Women in Red) could help you along until it is ready to be moved to mainspace. You have to be very careful when writing biographies of living people. I would therefore advise you to start with someone who is no longer alive. Let me know how it all goes.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott: Thanks. Do I just look through articles to see which might need help? I also joined Women in Green, would that be a good place to start? I started work on a woman scientist, but she is living, so I'll work on someone dead. Sorry for all the questions! And thanks again for recommending Wikipedia Adventure, that was amazing. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Aurornisxui: You should try to pick someone in a field that interests you. Look at all the occupations on our Redlists, then use a relevant category to find someone interesting. I take no credit for the Wikipedia Adventure - it's included in the standard welcome. But I know many newcomers have found it very useful.--Ipigott (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'm getting the hang of this now. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Women in RedEdit

Good afternoon, At this time I will be unable to participate in this. But I wanted to tell you about what I have found so far for Lily Ehrenfried. and both have articles on her, although neither has any citations. I did a search for her on both and - some excellent resources on (she practiced in France). There was nothing about her in the French or German biographical dictionaries available on wikipedia. Thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Aurornisxui: Take your time. There's no rush. I see there is an interesting, quite detailed biography in French which lists a number of sources. See also [2]. Surprisingly there is very little in English but there's a snippet here. Let me know if you start the article and I'll try to help you along. I am fluent in both French and German.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in RedEdit

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.

New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I'

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination of Women's anniversaries in 2019 for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women's anniversaries in 2019 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's anniversaries in 2019 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lola Alvarez BravoEdit

I see that you already changed the class on the talk page. I think I have done about all I can do with it and would appreciate your critique and copyediting. If you don't have time, no worries. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

SusunW: Yes, I was hoping to start on this yesterday as it seemed to be almost ready. I've now been through the whole thing. As usual, a very interesting article. Somewhere, I think it would be useful to explain that all her photographs were black and white (if you can find a suitable source!). Perhaps you could also include some external links where her most significant works can be seen (e.g. [3]. It is frustrating not to be able to view more easily the works described in some detail. I see Commons has her portrait of María Izquierdo at Foto de Lola Alvarez Bravo (2267119327).jpg. There is also [4] marked public on Flickr. There's only one thing that worries me a bit in the article and that is your use of "exhibit". It might be because I am more familiar with British English but for me an exhibit is one item while for a presentation of numerous items, I would use exhibition. I would therefore have preferred "many solo and group exhibitions" rather than "many solo and group exhibits" while "the exhibit México en la Vida, en la Danza, en la Muerte" correctly refers to just one item. I would have used the heading "Exhibitions" rather than "Exhibits" at the end of the article. But I'll leave it up to you. Let me know if you need further assistance with anything.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As always, thank you Ian. I thought I put that in there, but in the back and forth between answering on Bandaranaike and working on this one, I guess I missed it. I know where it is, just need to figure out what page ;). Interesting, in the U.S. (my mom and husband are artists) a show or exhibition is what you call a presentation. And I hated using exhibition so many times, but a thesaurus check, giving me demonstration, exposition and spectacle, didn't seem to my mind as the same. I don't have a problem changing it, or adding different words, as I did not want it to be redundant. Will look at the other photos, hadn't even tried to find any yet. I did put a link to the Center of Photography at the bottom. Will also add the one you found. Give me a day or so to work on it and I may ask for more input. SusunW (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: Don't worry too much about exhibit. When I edit novels and other works for publication, I tend to be rather pedantic, but Wikipedia is hardly in the same league. In our WiR discussions (though I never complain too much), I hate to see "invite" (a verb) being used for "invitation". Even worse is the almost daily use of "awesome" meaning "fantastic" when for me it actually means "awe-inspiring" or even "frightening" or "fearful". And how about "You rock!" The first time it was applied to me, I had to look it up: [5]. I could probably compile long lists of Americanisms on Wikipedia which we would never have been allowed to use in my schooldays. That said, it is obviously unfair of me to impose English on Wikipedia, such a noteworthy American invention. I must in any case admit, as a result of Hollywood and American television, many Brits now even use American grammar such as "Did you see that actor's latest film" rather than "Have you seen..." Worse still, "I'm liking it" for "I like it." And I recently saw that someone on Wikipedia said that he would never reply to anyone he saw using the expression "reaching out" as in "Thanks for reaching out to me". I remember I once asked Rosie what it meant (it really came to me as a big surprise) but she had difficulty in explaining it. I don't think it is yet used very much in the U.K. but no doubt it's on its way. Sorry about all that but I thought it was only fair to give you some context.--Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I find the ins and outs of language fascinating. As I've said, we watch British television here occasionally and it always results in my husband and I discussing language. One series we watch repeatedly, features men addressing women as, "pet". My initial response was, they are comparing her to a dog! My husband said, "yes, sugar". Thus, in my head, now every time they say "pet" I translate it to Southernese and hear "sugar", which is probably equally appalling to Brits and Yankees. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: How about "honey" or even "sweetie" (especially for children). In my day, they weren't used in the U.K. but maybe they are now. My father often called me "pet" until I was about 10 years old.--Ipigott (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I might call my husband "honey", but would never use that to refer to anyone else. "Sweetie" makes me cringe, why I have no idea, as "sugar", is obviously the same. Odd, isn't it? (Reminds me of another British term, "lolly", which took me forever to figure out that doesn't mean just a lollipop, but refers to all candy.) But it also points to why communication is so very difficult, there are colloquialisms that just cannot cross borders. SusunW (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: Great to be discussing such global misunderstandings! For me lolly only means one thing: money. So there you are! But talking about sweets, when I first arrived in Canada in 1968, I was surprised to see chicklets meant chewing gum and candy (crystallized sugar) meant "sweets". BTW, I see that in all the examples given on Treasure (disambiguation), there is no mention of the very common English term of endearment. My best friend's mother always called her son "treasure". I now know that its Scandinavian equivalent "skat" is also widespread.--Ipigott (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
How funny. What pray tell does chicklet mean in British English? To me it is chewing gum, whereas chicle is the sap itself. A baby bird is a chick, but since that already is diminutive, I am at a loss. (And yes, I do not like it when women are referred to as chickens, either chicks or hens). Also never heard of treasure used in that fashion. My favorite Yucatecan phrase of late is "buscar no buscar", which makes no sense if one translates it as "to search not to search", but actually means searched but couldn't find. I imagine the confusion if I tried to use that in Spain. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Chiclet has absolutely no meaning in British English. Turing to Spanish, It looks as if a true Spaniard had embarked on this journey: "En 2006 recibió el premio Provincia de Guadalajara de Narrativa por su novela Buscar o no buscar publicada por Ediciones Irreverentes".[6]. But now, as Daniel Defoe so sensibly concluded: "And so to bed." ¡Hasta maňana! Que duermas bien.--Ipigott (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, it is fascinating. Sleep well. In the mean time, I shall work on Alvarez. SusunW (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Laura Adams ArmerEdit

Hi Ian, While working on my women writers project to assess/update the talkpage classifications of women writer award laureates, I came across Laura Adams Armer who also had quite a career as a photographer. Knowing that you are working on a women photographers project, I thought I'd mention her to you. I'm not suggesting including her in the timeline. It's just that she's from California, so she sparked my interest, and I thought maybe you'd be interested in glancing at her article, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep. She certainly looks as if she deserves to be in the timeline. I've added her under 1899.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Ian. And BTW, I didn't get a ping for this message; just happened to see it. Strange. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I actually repinged it after a pinging error.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in RedEdit

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108

Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

January events: Women of War and Peace Play!

January geofocus: Caucasus

New, year-long initiative: Suffrage

Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list
Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list
Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging


  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your above and beyond work on Vera Strodl Dowling and Kathleen Fox (aviator). I am impressed on these lengthly articles that you made for them and hope to send some more notable women in aviation your way for creation. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, MrLinkinPark333. If it hadn't been for you, I wouldn't have known these women needed attention. I've already made a start on Lorna deBlicquy's biography and will try to complete it over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Nooooooo! I was already working on that draft for Lorna XD --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: Sorry about that, you should have let me know. I'll make sure your efforts are incorporated as necessary unless you would like to do so yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I did mention I was ;) It's okay as I already did one for the december 2018 lauerates, which was my main priority. I'll merge my content into yours :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: I seem to have been too busy with too many other things. I see you did indeed mention your were working on her. I'll hold off any further work on the article until you let me know you have incorporated your additions.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Okay that's pretty much it. I'll leave the career for you :) Also, I was wondering if I could replace some of the citations from Vera Dowling to make it less dependent of ref #1 (it's used 11 times). I could weave the two sources I have to balance them out. If you think it's ok I'll leave it. Same thing with deBlicquy I could use the two books I have to replace citations that are heavily used to balance them out. Let me know what you think. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: I don't think it's too much of a problem that one source is referenced 11 times but I think it would help if you added (rather than replaced) your book source where appropriate. You could also include it in "Further reading". I must say I'm really sorry about "stealing" your deBlicquy. To tell you the truth, I just checked the Canadian Hall of Fame list and noticed she was still red-linked. Anyway, all the best for Christman. We have eight children and grandchildren with us at the moment so I won't have much time for editing.--Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Okay. I thought I suggest it as the bush pilots book has basically most of that infomration. Including it as a further reading sounds even better. Also no worries about deBlicquy. It would have taken me the rest of December to finish it cause of her lengthy career. Glad you took initative and finished it. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

GAR reviewEdit

Varanasi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A Shaker greetingEdit

  A Shaker Christmas wish
Give good gifts, one to another
Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow
Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother
Smooth life's journey as you onward go.
Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers.
So shed an influence blessing to prove;
Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs;
Blest and be blest, is the law of love.

Happy editing into 2019 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to collaborate with you. All the very best from me too for Christmas and the New Year.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and good luck for 2019Edit

Merry Christmas!Edit

Hello, {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
Abishe (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for First World Congress of Jewish WomenEdit

 On 31 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First World Congress of Jewish Women, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1923 World Congress of Jewish Women in Vienna unanimously resolved to support the settlement of Jews in Palestine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First World Congress of Jewish Women. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, First World Congress of Jewish Women), 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) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ipigott!Edit

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

Thank you very much, SkyGazer 512, and a Happy New Year to you too.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit


Happy New Year!

Hello Ipigott: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you very much, Walk Like an Egyptian, and a Happy New Year to you too.--Ipigott (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda, and a Happy New Year to you to. Bach to the future!--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

... for your additions to List of peace activists. We're far too anglocentric (US or UK) here on en:wp, so it's good to learn about a whole bunch of Scandinavians. Appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

NSH001: Thanks. I'll be adding quite a few more over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Aletta JacobsEdit

I think I have finished with the preliminary re-write and amazingly found relevant photos (one more is pending for the 1888-1903 section, but I am not sure of the licensing yet). If you have time and the desire, would you give it a copyedit? If not, no worries. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to help, SusunW. It's a real pleasure to copy-edit your articles.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. She was a joy to write, I must say. So sad that the article on such an internationally prominent woman was in the shape that it was. At least now, the impact of her life's work is evident. Really appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: I know exactly what you mean. I keep coming across Scandinavian activists whose articles need much more attention but I am also aware that there are many important figures who are nowhere on Wikipedia, not even in the Scandinavian languages. At the moment, it seems to me to be more important to cover a few of them at least up to start standard rather than spending substantial time and effort on bringing one or two up to B or GA. I've been wondering whether it would be useful to start listing biographies of important contributors to the women's movement which really require improvement. Perhaps it would help with our year-long focus on suffrage but it doesn't fit too well into either Women in Red or Women in Green. Perhaps we need Women in Yellow too! Always so much more to do...--Ipigott (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I know, it's a balancing act. As I was working on the crowd sources suffragists list I kept running across stubs. Frustrating to me as none of them mentioned their work for women. (But I did find quite a few Scandinavians that I added to the redlists). SusunW (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I see there are several Danes, Norwegians and Swedes on the Suffragists list. I'll try to cover them once I have dealt with my own list of red links of names from the other articles on peace activists and suffragists I have recently created.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia/WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in architecture listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia/WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in architecture. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia/WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in architecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian, a friendly FYI that I responded to this one (plus one more). --Rosiestep (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Lola Álvarez BravoEdit

 On 9 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lola Álvarez Bravo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that photographer Lola Álvarez Bravo was described by Alfonso Michel as Mexico's most important painter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lola Álvarez Bravo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lola Álvarez Bravo), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

List of peace activistsEdit

Hi. I see you've been adding lots of entries. Could you please consider going back and adding a link to the list page in their See also sections. This has been pretty standard practice for this article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy: Thank you for your interest in my additions. Like you, I've compiled and added to many, many lists of people over the years but in general have not thought it necessary to provide links from their biographies to the lists. In this case, I see there are already "See also" links from the articles on Pacifism and Peace movement. Is that not sufficient? I think my time is better devoted to enhancing this and other related lists with the names of those who are missing. In due course, I also intend to develop a list of women pacifists/peace activists but thought it was important to fill the gaps (both males and females) in the List of peace activists first. I see you have done a great deal of useful work on the list yourself. Unfortunately, you and the other major contributors do not seem to have given much consideration to European figures. I'm trying to make sure the more important ones are included.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Good on you, and nice work. Now it's up to others to go through your additions and add this page to the See also section of your additions. Why is a new women-only list needed? Seems redundant, as this list seems sufficient to cover everyone. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: The main reason we need lists of women is to encourage people to write articles about all those who are still missing in the English Wikipedia. The Women in Red wikiproject is currently running a month-long editathon focused on Women of War and Peace. (Throughout the year we are also covering suffragists.) We hope many more will be included. The other reason is that we are generally trying to promote women's involvement in various areas of interest. Their contributions to pacifism need to be more strongly emphasised. I intend to create a listing by country. You are of course welcome to contribute yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But please don't remove women from the List of Peace Activists because of duplication (unrelated, hopefully, but in categories I've seen editors sub-sub-sub-sub-categorizing and the original purpose gets lost in a hundred drawers, all of which have to be opened to get the complete listings). Have done lots of work in the suffragists and suffragettes lists and edits, so I know that Wikipedia topic map pretty well. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: I can't recall ever having removed any names from the List of Peace Activists. As for the List of suffragists and suffragettes, many of the sections are very well covered but there's lots of work still to do on the French, Germans and Irish in particular. As time permits, I'll see what I can do, but there are also lots of red-linked names which need articles.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean you've removed any, just asking that you don't when you do a separate woman-only list (which I still think is unneeded and redundant, although I can see your interest). I haven't kept up or looked at the suffragists and suffragettes list in awhile (added a publication a bit ago), and any red links on that kind of list should be removed. Thanks for pointing out that it has them, and for your interest in adding to it. (EDIT: There are only a few red links, so I'll leave them but there is no way to verify if they are legit or not. The Ireland section seems well covered.) Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: It's not that there are lots of red-linked names on the list but rather than there are lots of suffragists who are still red-linked for example here and in related articles. You'll see how the list progresses over the coming days and months. I mentioned the Irish section on suffragists as most of the names have no descriptions (ditto the French and Germans). I understand your scepticism in regard to a women's list on peace activists but particularly for non-English names, it is frequently not possible to see which ones are women. Furthermore, as it's a field in which women were instrumental in achieving prominence, I think it is important to see who they were and from which countries they came. In a week or two, once the list exists, you will perhaps be able to see what I mean. There's absolutely no question of any names being deleted from the main list. It's important that they should appear there too.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Sirimavo BandaranaikeEdit

 On 14 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sirimavo Bandaranaike, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1960, Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the first woman elected as a non-hereditary head of government in modern history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sirimavo Bandaranaike. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sirimavo Bandaranaike), 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) 00:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

two help requestsEdit


Incidentally I wrote a new article about a Malayalam language play named Kithaab, on English Wikipedia, which has been reviewed and copy edited by more than four other users.

I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how to enlist the same on your page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105 January 2019 Play! please help in the same.

Secondly please let me know if Wikipedia:WikiProject Women is having any page for translation request listing for women related articles, and how to enlist a translation request. I wish I can promote as many translations of article Kithaab in 2019 as possible.

Also please do see if you can contribute to translation of article Kithaab, on individual level.

Thanks in advance, and warm regards.

Bookku (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Bookku and thanks for getting in touch. I've added Kithaab to the list of new or upgraded articles on the WiR meetup page. I've also added the template {{WIR-105}} to the Kithaab talk page. It looks to me as if you should become a member of Women in Red. You can do so by clicking on "Join WikiProject" in the box at the top of the Main WiR page. If you wish to have Kithaab translated into other languages, I suggest you list it on suitable redlists for the languages in question. You can find a list of projects similar to the English Women in Red in the left-hand margin of the main WiR page but the article may in fact be more suitable for inclusion in lists on literature. You've done a good job on this article. I hope there will be many more.--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gudrun Løchen Drewsen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christiania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ian

Thanks SO much for your two messages...

Firstly, am I writing to you in the right section?

Paulatthomas (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Paulatthomas: Yes, messages at the bottom of the page are fine. Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Thank You!Edit


The Months of African Cinema Global Edit-a-thon was concluded on 30 November 2018, and we've had amazing results. Over 570 articles were created across 8 language-Wikipedias. 7 in-person gatherings of Wikipedians were organized across different parts of the world.

All our winners have been recognized and you can check the complete list here.

For a pilot event, all our expectations were surpassed and we have you to thank for that. Thank you so much for being part of this global event! Thank you for helping to fix African content gaps on Wikipedia! We hope to see more of your participation in future AfroCine events and activities. Please remember to signup on the main WikiProject participants page, in order to get updated with these activities.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in RedEdit

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:

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

Can you help check my first article?Edit

Hi Ian

Thanks again for being the first to welcome me to Wikipedia. I love the idea of being part of this community and contributing. With so much information it's quite overwhelming. Could I ask for your help to review the changes I've made to my first draft article so I can ensure it's accepted next time I submit it?

I *think* I've just figured out the referencing/citation process but would you mind checking anything else I need to address on it?

Hope you don't mind me asking. I'm committed to spending time on this every day reading and learning - just would appreciate some support on the first post from an experienced contributor.

Thanks in advance.

Paulatthomas (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Paulatthomas: As you can see from Draft:Margaret Molloy, I've worked quite a bit on the article, toning down some of the over promotional passages and formatting the references. The article is now almost ready for mainspace but there are still a couple of problems. I have not been able to identify the source of the sections "Early life and education" and "Personal details". In particular, it would be useful to have a reliable source for the date and place of birth. If you cannot provide a source for these details, then the article could simply be published without them.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Paulatthomas: Hallo Paula, I had a look at your draft too and tweaked it a bit. The "Personal details section", as well as being unsourced, isn't really in Wikipedia style. The information ought to be incorporated in prose - sentences - in appropriate sections. It could also be repeated in a formatted "infobox", but that's not necessary. I've added a DEFAULTSORT (so she files under "Molloy" not "Margaret" in any listings, and a few categories, made non-functional with a ":" while she's a draft. If we have a source for the date of birth, then it goes into the lead sentence - I've added it there, but if you haven't got a reliable published source for it then it needs to come out. Sources needn't be online if they are reliable and published - eg if it was a newspaper article which had that date of birth you could give a full reference (newspaper, article title, date, page) and that would be fine. PamD 10:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Once she's in mainspace we should create Category:Irish marketing people on the pattern of Category:Filipino marketing people within Category:Marketing people by nationality, but if I created it now it would probably get deleted as an empty category! PamD 10:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
PamD: Good idea. Done! Now we just need similar categories for a few dozen more nationalities...--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well ... if we really find marketing people interesting! Better things to do. PamD 11:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Paulatthomas: After finding a source for the date and place of birth, etc., I moved the article to mainspace. On the basis of the edits we have made here, you should be in a good position to start your next biography.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again so much Ian. I think I was editing at the same time you were publishing, so hope I haven't affected anything. Anyway, for now, I'm thrilled to have my first one live. I've learned loads already and hopefully the next one will be a bit easier. I have a list of notable women I want to write biographies for. 12:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Marie-Louise Puech-MilhauEdit

Hallo Ian, I came across this lady while stub-sorting, and added a surname redirect and an entry at the Puech surname page. But I then wondered about the red-linked organisations, hoping that you know about {{ill}} for adding links to other language wikis alongside redlinks ... and was surprised to find neither of them in French wikipedia. But I wondered whether Union pour le Suffrage des Femmes is actually Union française pour le suffrage des femmes otherwise known as French Union for Women's Suffrage? I can't see any mention of M-L P-M in either the en or fr article about it, and given how all these societies fragmented etc it may or may not be the same thing. Over to you! PamD 08:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Pam, and thanks for your interest. I redlinked the two organizations as I intended to get back to them today. You are quite right that the "Union pour le Suffrage des Femmes" is the same as "Union française pour le suffrage des femmes" (there are quite a few of these where the française or français is left out in French-language documents) and I have now made a redirect. We still need an article on "Union Féminine pour la Société des Nations" (also "Union Féminine pour la SdN" or simply "UFSDN"). There's a word about it here and much more detail here, particularly on p.61. In English it seems to be referred to as "Women's Union for the League of Nations" (see [7]). Now that I have a number of sources, I'll just go ahead a create a short article about it but my priority at the moment is actually to cover the red-linked ladies in the list at the end of Inter-Allied Women's Conference which we are developing for GA and also for a DYK on 10 February. I don't often create stubs I am unable to expand but I think these are justified exceptions. BTW, I also have a number of Scandinavian women's organizations from the early 20th century which need articles. There's always so much to do!--Ipigott (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
PamD: Further to the above, I've now created a short article on Women's Union for the League of Nations. Please feel free to add to it if you wish.--Ipigott (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Back to 17.79% - 10,686 new biographies of men but only 1,229 of womenEdit

Ian, I must say I was taken aback by your latest edit summary at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red: "back to 17.79% - 10,686 new biographies of men but only 1,229 of women". This is by no means a criticism of you; rather, I'm venting my frustration over the factoid. Feels like "two steps forward, one step back". I wonder how many of those 10,686 new biographies of men are bot-generated or stubs, etc. No way to tell, I assume. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I see we now have an explanation for this on the WiR talk page. The reduction was a result of "male" being added to a large number of Wikidata biographical entries without a specific gender (in contrast to women's biographies). While it's good to have improvements to Wikidata, it's frustrating to see that it looks as if there has been no progress on the percentage of women's biographies since 17 September 2018 when we were also at 17.79% (partly due, no doubt, to "female" being added to ungendered entries on Wikidata). After reaching 17.82% on 2 October, we fell back to 17.67% a week later after a large number of drafts were deleted. We finally reached 17.83% in January but in the light of the recent "male" additions, this figure now appears too high. Although there are still a considerable number of Wikidata entries requiring gender coding (mainly "male", it seems to me we now have a more realistic figure as a basis for reflecting progress over the coming weeks and months.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Goldberg Variations (play)Edit

 On 9 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Goldberg Variations (play), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Tabori wrote Goldberg Variations as a play within a play, presenting biblical scenes satirically as a series of disasters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goldberg Variations (play). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Goldberg Variations (play)), 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) 00:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! - Different topic: I want to build a collaboration for articles that (French) LouisAlain creates by tranlating, mostly about EU-related personalities, articles which often have language problems and referencing problems, the latter because de and fr have a different style. Example: yesterday three ref tags were placed on Martin Abendroth, while the ref supporting all content was "hidden" as "Bibliography" (and was also in German and also not online). He is productive, so I can't handle it alone ;) - I plan to make a table on his talk, just listing articles and their progress. Many of those went to DYK. I'd like to spare him these templated messages "Nice to meat you, but ..." (didn't count how many times). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!Edit

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi Ipigott, Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative with your signature! Maybe you know another Wikipedian who'd like to sign as well? :-) --Gnom (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gnom: I think you would get more support if you made it easier to add names to the list of supporters. Perhaps move it to the top of the page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what do you mean by that? --Gnom (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean: have a direct link ready in this message for people who want to support? Sounds good, could replace one of three links to the same page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Gnom: I actually meant the meta page itself. You have to read through quite lot of text before you get to "How you can help". The first time I viewed the page, I would have liked to add my name but simply did not have time to find out how to do so. I had to go back to it later. I think you might get more people to sign up if they could access the supporters list from the first screenful of information. It might also be useful to point out that over 500 people have already signed up.--Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Inter-Allied Women's ConferenceEdit

 On 10 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inter-Allied Women's Conference, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Inter-Allied Women's Conference, which opened in Paris 100 years ago today, marked the first time women were granted formal participation in an international treaty negotiation (conference organizer Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inter-Allied Women's Conference. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Inter-Allied Women's Conference), 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) 00:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!Edit

Thanks for the support on the Alison Phillips article, and the intro to the Women in Red group - great idea. Henrysask (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ian: thanks for the welcome to Women In Red! Sure, so I've actually done three Edit-A-Thons so far [one at the University of Toronto - Sept 2018, then again this week (Feb 2019); and one in Ottawa (Feb 2019)]. You can see Edit-A-Thon stats here ( and I'll elaborate below.

So in each Edit-A-Thon, my format is: teach a crash course to Wiki editing, editing session on expanding pages, and editing session on creating new pages. The Sept 2018 one was the most productive Edit-A-Thon, but the Ottawa one was the most inspiring for the event attendees (at least from my POV). Re: the 7 Feb one at UofT: I helped organize it but Alex Jung in this case taught participants. The event did have a lower turnout (9 editors?) due to poor weather - but regardless, with each Edit-A-Thon, everyone is excited to edit and do contribute edits (or in some cases: new pages) to Wikipedia.

I don't have anything else planned, but will give you a heads-up if things pop up. For now, I'm planning to create more pages for Canadian women scientists and keep an eye on new pages created from my previous Edit-A-Thons to polish them up.

Soulsinsync (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Soulsinsync: Thanks for your detailed reply and the link to your stats. You certainly have been very busy and your approach seems to be effective. I was particularly impressed by the results from the Science Museum. At least two of the participants went ahead and created bios which immediately reached mainspace. Many of the others created detailed drafts. It remains to be seen how many of them continue editing in future. At least half of them certainly seem to have learnt the essentials. I did not see any of your events listed on Category:Wikipedia meetups in Toronto or Category:Wikipedia meetups in Canada. It might be useful to create Wikipedia meetup pages as they make it easier to spread news about events and monitor the results. I only learnt of the meetup on 8 February from the U of T news item. I had in fact seen there that Alex was to be involved but when I looked at his contributions, he did not seem to be very active on the EN wiki.
Now that you are a member of Women in Red, you might like to draw the attention of your colleagues and new recruits to the project. We are always happy to help people along and make sure valid new articles are not deleted. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian: Thanks! It's actually four articles now from the Museum one! Yep, I did mention the Women In Red project at the end of the Edit-A-Thon, and I'm about to send a follow-up email to participants to encourage them to keep going + give my contact info in case they want a helping hand with Wiki submissions. I'm hoping that will encourage them to keep editing. And yes, I'll be sure to list events at those two links in the future. The logistics and promotions of Edit-A-Thons to the local community usually takes up my time, so I tend to forget to list it on Wikipedia itself. - Soulsinsync (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Weird little edit I don't know how to makeEdit

Hi Ipigott. I'm a newish editor and have found a little bug I don't know how to fix. I asked a couple of other editors and they don't know either. I'm hoping you do (or you know where I should ask!). The problem is this: When I am using the Visual Editor to add a link on a page to Joan Withers, there is a dropdown list of possible pages that match what I'm typing, that appears as I type her name in. However under that 'Joan Withers' there is some grey text that says 'NZ businessman'. This is incorrect, as she is not a businessman. However that text is not being sourced from her page, as there is no mention of the word 'businessman' on her page. Do you know how to edit that text underneath the name in the dropdown list that appears as you try to add a link?

I have found similar issues with other people occasionally but those appear to have since been fixed, so it must be possible to edit this text somewhere. Thanks for any help you can give me! DrThneed (talk)

DrThneed: I'm afraid I can't help you with visual editing. I've never used it myself. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and decide where to explain your problem. Unless, of course, someone who watches this page can help you out. Anyway, I'm glad to see you've now started writing biographies of New Zealand artists. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look there for help. And thanks for the encouragement!DrThneed (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in RedEdit

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) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank youEdit

...for adding Sumiko Hennessy to the Social Work metrics. It's pretty funny; whenever I decide to write up a Colorado Women's Hall of Fame recipient, it often fits right into WiR's theme of the month! Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Puerto RicansEdit

I admire how talented you are with all your contributions. In accordance to the established rules of inclusion, each addition to the list must also provide a reliable verifiable source which cites the person's notability and/or the person's link to Puerto Rico, otherwise the name will be removed. However, please add the name once with the proper source and all will be fine/ Wikipedia needs more editors like you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Marine 69-71: Thanks for getting in touch. I see you have created many well presented and informative articles, including women's biographies such as Irene M. Zoppi. As we are now approaching Women's History Month, it would be great if you could continue along these lines with further coverage of outstanding women.
Thanks for your alert. I added Ingrid Montes with a description showing her relationship to Puerto Rico. I did this to help a brand new Puerto Rican contributor. I thought it would be interesting for her to see that such a list existed as she seems to want to write about other Puerto Rican academics. In my experience, if an item on a list is blue linked to an article which clearly provides background, it should normally be maintained. When making the addition, I noticed that other educators such as Concha Meléndez were included without additional references. But perhaps the status of full professor in not sufficient for recognition? If so, even if I were to add a specific reference, that would not help. So I'll leave it up to you whether you want to reconsider this or not.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It is always nice to interact with people like you. My son and I started the list many years ago and it kept on growing. A lot of people were adding names of non-Puerto Ricans and in some cases of themselves. A group of us then decided to create the rules for inclusion. But before we implemented the rules we checked every name on the list and removed the names of those whom we could not proof their notability nor their relation to the island. Those whose claim we were able to proof, such as Concha Meléndez were allowed to continue≈ in the list, that is why some names do not have the reference. However, after we finished checking the list we implemented the rules of inclusion, thereby making it easier for us to confirm their notability and that the subject met all the requirements to be included in the list. Take care, and keep up the good work. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Marine 69-71: Thanks for the explanations. I now understand why there are so many unreferenced names on the list but it really is pretty confusing for first-time contributors and I fear there may be quite a number of notable Puerto Ricans whose names have been deleted. Less experienced editors are unlikely to try to sort out the problem. Perhaps you and your friends could add suitable references where they are missing. That would clarify the situation for all concerned. And now I am looking forward to at least one more women's biography from you in March. See Women in Red's plans for Women's History Month.--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Ha, I did write this: History of women in Puerto Rico and about 99.9% of the bios linked to it. Not bad, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Marine 69-71: Yes, that's really informative. Keep up the good work. I'm sure there are many more Puerto Rican women who deserve a page on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial regarding Wikipedia referencing with VisualEditorEdit

Hi, I have received a grant from WMF to support production of a video tutorial regarding creating references with VisualEditor. I anticipate that the video will be published in March 2019. If this tutorial is well received then I may produce additional tutorials in the future for English Wikipedia and possibly other projects such as Commons and Spanish Wikipedia. If you would like to receive notifications on your talk page when drafts and finished products from this project are ready for review, then please sign up for the project newsletter.
Regards, --Pine 00:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Women in the Spanish Civil WarEdit

Hi. Thank you very much for copyediting and fixing the articles I am working about Women in the Spanish Civil War. :) It is very much appreciated as I know I have some issues dropping words, making typos, etc. I appreciate your offer on the issue related to repetitive text, and would love assistance in this regards. One of my problems has been that, for me, for these articles to make sense they need to have a broader context at times, as otherwise things appear out of nowhere. This is why the Elections in the Second Republic, October Revolution of 1934, Start of the Civil War and Ignored and erased sections are often repeated. Also, likely some other sections. Popular Front, POUM, PCE ones also have huge amounts of crossover material as POUM and PCE both fought with each other and were part of the Popular Front. I'm just feeling at a loss to know if some of that more general background material expressed in those sections can be removed without losing context, or if the original remaining content left would make sense. The article about feminism in this period, I will try to add more about political versus personal feminism. It is just every time I edit that article, I realize the topic could be massively expanded as it never seems quite comprehensive enough in terms of providing a full perspective of what Spanish feminism was in that period. (And some of the more important women get casual mentions, which also feels like a massive disservice.)

At the moment, I am planning to main space the following articles on 8 March 2019 (with potential name changes):

Any support would be appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

LauraHale: The problem is not so much the fact that similar passages about the same developments occur in more than one article (as might be expected) but that there is too much repitition within each individual article. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to tidy up Feminists and the Spanish Civil War. I think that might turn out to be the most popular of the series. I'll also do what I can to help will all the rest in view of your intention to publish them all on 8 March. Great idea!--Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ooooooh. Different. Yeah, I can see that happening sometimes as I think I ran across this issue with the Motherhood article... I think I am doing that to try to keep narrative flow, or because I end up so buried in information that I lose track of what is in there and how things are organized or in other cases because things overlap periods. Will try to keep that in mind when I do another read through them on 7 March. I want to try to maybe get one more done but not sure which. And yeah, will try to be more careful on this. :) --LauraHale (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
LauraHale: I've been through the Feminists once more and think it is more or less ready for mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
LauraHale: I think I've done what I can with most of these articles. I've been through several of them from start to finish and have worked a bit on the leads of the others. But I have increasingly come across the same passages time and time again and realize further improvements will probably be more a matter of cutting and pasting that re-editing from scratch. I think I should now leave further work in your hands as you will be in a better position to decide how/whether to replace those sections which have not yet been edited by those that have. Please let me know if there is anything more specific I can help with. If you come across any sections which I have not yet edited anywhere, please let me know. Btw, on the question of prostitution, I think you have handled the histories very reasonably. I cannot see why anyone with a basic knowledge of the period should be upset at how you have presented things. I look forward to all the articles appearing on mainspace when you have had time to double-check them. Thanks once again for all your diligence.--Ipigott (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the assistance. I've been trying to double check them today and yesterday with bunches of little edits and removing duplicates when I find them. Not sure they will ever be perfect but will main space them later today. I've commented on the articles to explain what I know are my own writing issues so others can hopefully see the problems, understand they were not intentional and help. and yeah. :) Thanks again for all the assistance. --LauraHale (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
LauraHale: I fully understand your concerns and difficulties. Your talk page explanations should help future contributors to cope with the problem. Maybe you could move the articles you are happy with to mainspace as soon as you think they are ready. I could then start checking them through as they come along. Of course, if you would prefer to add them all together in one batch, then that's entirely up to you. I can't remember any similar enterprise of this kind. Your work is really impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott:, I am planning on moving the whole series in an hour or so. I just need to write one more lead and do a bit more copyediting. I ended up writing one more article than I intended and that one is the one that is probably the most problematic (Prostitution) but gives a bit of a start on a topic that appears in a lot of propaganda and undercurrents of a lot of things running through various topics but hard to articulate. Anyway, yeah, will main space today soon. :) Thanks again for all your support and assistance. --LauraHale (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Nafpaktitism‎Edit

You seem to have removed a lot of content from User talk:Nafpaktitism‎ in violation of WP:REFACTOR. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman: Thanks for keeping a watchful eye on this. I have in fact removed one old item from the page and have modified a few more. The problem was that it was not possible to add new readable messages to the page as the style criteria in several of the old invitations were causing columns, frames, etc., to prevent new messages from being displayed correctly at the foot of the page. I also changed a reference into an external link as it was appearing at the bottom of the page. If you go back over the last few edits I made, you'll see what I mean. If Nafpaktitism‎ would like the old page restored, I would be happy to do so.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I could see your edit was not vandalism per se but I'm always cautious. Putting something in your edit summary to that effect would help patrollers like me. I'm sure Nafpaktitism doesn't mind you fixing broken message templates. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

April editathons at Women in RedEdit

April 2019Edit

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:

Other ways you can participate:

Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)

Herman D. KoppelEdit

Could you perhaps expand our stub on Herman David Koppel, including finding out why some use the full name and others just say Herman Koppel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: Yes, of course. I'll look into it later.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I just "met" him with Bent Norup, whom I plan to nominate for DYK, - plenty of time ;) - There's also his opera, of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt: In Denmark, he seems to be referred to as Herman D. Koppel. I'll help to expand the article later. Working on Luxembourgers at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Mme Wellington KooEdit

Ipigott Thank you for helping me out with Mme Wellington Koo. Sorry I wasn't more active in the process. I've been very busy at work. Clara dari Semarang (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Clara dari Semarang: I was happy to help out with this interesting article. I see you have already made one correction. Perhaps you could look through the article carefully to make sure everything is OK.--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda: Seems like yesterday. But your own contributions are more and more impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
What you do today in assessment of article quality is awesome! All these memories when I see hundreds of article titles! I came with flowers but it fits here better. For the flowers, see my talk or here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt: I happened to come across a couple of your articles which deserved reassessment, then I noticed from here that many, many more needed attention. There are however two major problems which I can't explain: many of those with WP Classical music (which does not accept assessments) continue to display Unknown even if the other WPs have been given a rating, and WP Germany continues to display C class when it's rated B. (I noticed the same happens with Estonia.) I don't know whether it would be worthwhile asking anyone to correct these problems -- and if so who. I've generally been making use of Ores but it tends to give unreasonably high ratings for articles containing long lists, even if they only have a short introduction in running prose. So some of those marked GA by Ores are still rated C or even Start. If you disagree with any of the ratings, please feel free to change them. It's a pity many of your GAs are still listed as unknown as a result of WP Classical.--Ipigott (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
WP Classical is a strange corner of Wikipedia, with Composers in it the strangest, in splendid isolation which they cultivate, - we call it Elfenbeinturm. I actually don't care much about assessment, - stub, start, GA, FA is enough for me. There was a discussion about the topic on Opera which is a less strange corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!Edit

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:

Other ways you can participate:

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Ian. I just wanted to let you know that I submitted an article today about Laurel C. Schneider (theologian). As well, my daughter Mary Kate just submitted an article about Sr. Mary David Walgenbach. Any help or suggestions you can offer is always appreciated. Thanks for your ongoing attention to the 1000 Women in Religion Project.Dzingle1 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Dzingle1: Laurel C. Schneider looks fine to me. I've tidied it up a bit and will look at it again tomorrow. Well done! I can't find anything on Mary David Walgenbach. If you remind me of your daughter's user name, I can see what she has been doing.--Ipigott (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Dzingle1: Don't worry, I've just found Mkhartung528's Draft:Sister Mary David Walgenbach. It's a bit late here now. I'll look at it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, Thank you!! Dzingle1 (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Dzingle1, Mkhartung: There are a few problems with the article as it stands. First of all, if you look at the article's history (click on View History), you'll see that there is no evidence that the article was created by your daughter as the creator is listed as 2604:2000:D144:6800:C8DA:1A17:FE61:F095. This could be corrected if she now re-creates the whole article as Draft:Mary David Walgenbach (without the sister) using her user name. This can be done simply by copying and pasting the edit version. Secondly, the lead to the article needs to emphasize what Walgenbach is famous for. The current text makes it look as if she was just one of at least three sisters who created the ecumenical community. There needs to be evidence in the sources used that Walgenbach played a key role here. Maybe she has also gained fame as an author. If so, her works should be cited and explained. Unfortunately, at the moment it looks to me as if most of the sources are more about the history of the monastery, its rebuilding and its current attraction for tourists. Maybe it would be better to enhance the article Benedictine Women of Madison, including the important roles played by Walgenbach and the other sisters. Redirects could then be made from their names to the expanded article. I hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, I'll take a look at the article. Mary David's accomplishments should stand on their own merit and there should be enough reliable sourcing but perhaps not. Thanks for the advice. I will pass it on to Mary Kate. Dzingle1 (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bell Canada Award date for Chantal duPontEdit

Hello, Ipigott, I changed the Bell Award date back to 2005 but wanted to ask, if the date of the announcement and the date of the award are different, which technically should it be? Perhaps I should have left it... Also, very happy you joined in on this article. I was trying to get my head around contributing but was experiencing some challenges, such as, not reading French and therefore not knowing whether google was accurately translating the information. Also got hung up on the referencing. I normally use the Cite tool. Perhaps, I should leave these articles for the more experienced Wikipedians. :- ) LorriBrown (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown if an article interests you, do it. I do them in draft, ask for help with what I am having difficulty on, and then move them to mainspace. I have extreme difficulty with French (I say it's my worst language) and always ask Ian or ‎Charles01 for help. Over the years, I have developed a network of people who help me with articles. In fact, I can honestly say if I hadn't found a supportive group of collaborators, I wouldn't still be editing. You are doing fine, and I'll be glad to help you with referencing at any time. Research and writing are my fortes, technical stuff, not so much. Ian is truly the polyglot and is a valuable set of eyes on any article. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
SusunW Thank you for you input. I have meet very nice, extremely helpful editors in my short time here. Initially, I had a rough go of it with my first article (& a COI); however, supportive people like yourself helped me to gain a better perspective and understanding for the push back. Had I not had their support and objectivity I likely would have given up and just went away to doing other things. :- )LorriBrown (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
LorriBrown: You are right about 2005 as the date of the award although the reference given in the article is dated 2006. However according to this, Steve Reinke was the winner of the 2006 award. That is no doubt due to a later update. A more authentic and complete source for duPont's award is this. I'll include it as the source and adapt the article accordingly. I'm glad to see we already have an article on the other female award winner mentioned, Lisa Steele. As for the formatting of the references, it looks to me as if they are correct. Please continue picking up interesting people for articles even if you have difficulty with French. We can always work together. Just let me know whenever you need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Eva MitzhoumaEdit

When I found the group photo of the Inter-Allied Women's Conference (woo hoo!) it gave a Polish attendee. I get absolutely 0 hits on Eva Mitzhouma, but strongly suspect this is not how her name would have been spelled in Polish. Ideas? SusunW (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Can't help with this. But Mitzhouma does not seem to be a Polish name.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It didn't to me either. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

-ize and -izeEdit

Good morning Ipigott. I thought that you may be interested to know that the use of -ize instead of -ise within a UK variant of written English is usually a sign that the writer is using the Oxford spelling variety of British English. Which is entirely acceptable of course, but I was assuming that SusunW preferred her article in standard British English. Feel free to change it to Oxford spelling, or I could do it for you with a couple of clicks using a handy Wiki-tool if you wish. Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild: Thanks for getting back to me on this so quickly. There's no need to change anything as the -ise spellings are of course perfectly acceptable too. I've been using -ize ever since my schooldays and always thought I was writing standard British English. As a constant user of the OED, I had always assumed it was the standard. On Wikipedia too, where I can I stick to -ize as it is far more widely used. I do quite a bit of copy editing for Americans who want to adapt to British English, generally keeping the -ize variant unless -ise has already been used. May I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your well-presented articles. As a native of Newcastle, I read with interest Siege of Berwick (1333) when it was posted on DYK not so long ago.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You are quite right in implying (assuming that you were) that there was no need to change the -ize endings to put the article into British English. I had the option to click "British" or "British (Oxford)" on the Wiki-tool and went for the former, for no particular reason. My teachers' preferred endings were -ise, hence, and as a Collins dictionary user, -ise tends to look natural to me.
I do a fair bit of copy editing myself, mostly on GOCE, some of it FAC prep for editors. Obviously I stick with whichever language option either the article is tagged with or the editor prefers. I find Indian English particularly challenging, I'm not sure why. Of course, Sod's Law applies and I get far more than my fair share of these.
Thanks for the comment re Siege of Berwick (1333). Only the second article I wrote from scratch. Hence riddled with flaws, but I keep working away at it, trying to get it up to what I consider an acceptable standard. I added an image only three days ago. I have been chewing over a new article on Burnt Candlemas, which will involve the short lived Scottish reoccupation of Berwick, for a while, but have been distracted by trying to complete a twelve article FT on the Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347. Hopefully I will get around to it soon.
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sophia WisniewskaEdit

Hello! I think I received a "thank you" notification from you for my comment on notability at Draft talk:Sophia Wisniewska, but I've not received any feedback from any editors yet. I think my timing for submitting the draft for review was unfortunate, given the recent lawsuit announcement, but I believe the subject is notable outside the single incident and I'm hoping editors will take time to review again. Do you have any further thoughts? Any feedback is appreciated. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Inkian Jason: There is a basic problem of notability here. You need to include more sources on the success of her career, if possible from newspapers or journals. Maybe this will give you some leads but I don't think it's sufficient in its own right. There's also this, but it's not very revealing. I think this may help too. See whether you can develop the article further on the basis of these and any other new sources you can find.--Ipigott (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for your reply. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! I've further expanded the draft's "Early life and education" section, added mention of additional board roles, moved the April 2019 update, and created a "Personal life" section, based on the profiles discussed above. I hope this helps demonstrate sufficient sourcing (+5 since submitting for review). Are you able to take another look at the draft, please? Thanks in advance, Inkian Jason (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott. I'm still hoping for feedback on the draft, or to see the draft moved into the main space if appropriate. Are you willing to review again? If not, I will try to find other editors to take a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Inkian Jason: I think that with a more informative lead section, it would be appropriate to move the article into main space. Thanks for following up on my suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added mention of Pennsylvania State University and Temple University Ambler to the introduction. Not sure if her board position at Widener University should be mentioned as well? Thanks again for your help and feedback. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I see the draft has gone live. Thanks again for your assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nominating Bayarjargal Agvaantseren and Ana Colovic Lesoska‎ articles for DYKEdit

Hi, I enjoyed your articles on Bayarjargal Agvaantseren and Ana Colovic Lesoska. Have you considered nominating these articles to be featured in the WP:DYK section on the front page? Best, Philepitta (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Philepitta: Thank you for your kind interest. I've been covering this year's winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize, including Jacqueline Evans (conservationist) and Linda Garcia. I'm not keen to submit articles to DYK myself as I have been discouraged by previous involvement. As an active member of WP:Women in Red, I am nevertheless always happy to see biographies of women included there. I see your interesting article on Wayétu Moore featured on DYK in February. Perhaps you would like to nominate one or more of these Goldman prizewinners for inclusion?--Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't have a chance to do this and for the very slow reply--got busy in real life, unfortunately. Also I wanted to say a belated thanks for assessing the Wayétu Moore article--I appreciate it! Philepitta (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIREdit

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:

Other ways you can participate:

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Maria Dorothea DerrierEdit

Would you take a look at this when you have time? I have some German references I cannot translate and need help with, and it needs a copy edit. I also think I need to make sure the medical terms are okay and the gender language is acceptable before it goes live. Not really sure what to call the profession, but literally he was a traveling medical specimen. (How the heck do you input that in wikidata?) When I started it wasn't sure how much I would find, but seems to me that even without a lot of biographical detail, it is approaching GA. I have yet to find photographs of Derrier, other than anatomical drawings. Not sure those should be used, but maybe. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been through this quite carefully and have done a bit of copy editing. What worries me most is the structure. I wonder whether it would be useful to separate items more related to the general background from the individual case of Derrier. As for the "traveling medical specimen", it seems to me to be an early case of human subjects research, although that concept did not evolve until the Nuremberg trials. Please let me know which German references you are having trouble with and I'll look them through. (I see by the way that Wikidata gives the date of death as 27 March 1835 but without a source.)--Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Susun, forgot to ping you.--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll go look now. Thanks for the link to "human subject research". Discussed the use of the photographs with Rosie and Sue and we concluded they are not biographical. While they might have encyclopedic use in an article on intersex, not in the biography. As for the references, I sent you Sera just to make sure there were no huge translation issues. These three [8] [9] [10] I cannot translate. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Susun: In a way, the article is not entirely biographical either. What are the precise issues with the refs?--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I know, not much actual detail of the life, but again considering the period, there is a lot more known than many "outsiders" who weren't "great men". On the refs, the only way I could translate them at all would be to type out the text and run it through machine translators. Don't have any idea if they have something useful in them or not. I separated background and medical/legal. Is that better? SusunW (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Susun: Yes, that's better. You second ref says that she told them s/he had never experienced menstruation. Otherwise covers more or less the same ground as other sources.--Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Susun: Can't access your third ref and the first one does not seem to be very important. I must say I came across many more sources, some of which said that her original family name was in fact Dürrge and that it had later been rewritten as Derrier (rather than the other way round). One doctor asker her to write her name on a piece of paper and she wrote Dürrge. There's so much stuff about the case in German that I can't remember which sources stated this. Don't know if it's important. Most of the more recent literature now refers to Derrier.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow! I would love to have that ref. I noted that the two were similarly pronounced because that was fascinating to me. Yes, lots of sources in German, but many I could not read, so between Sera and Johnson, I hoped that the majority of information was covered. Try this[11] and type Derrier in the search. One other question, should Sera's observation on gender bias be in the text, or in a note? To me, it is a very significant detail, so I put it in the body. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: I simply started searching on Karl Dürrge, with or without the names of some of the doctors. It's a bit late here now but I'll try to find the source with the way she wrote her name tomorrow. Maybe some other interesting details too. Do you not know any other German speakers interested in this kind of thing? It's not really my sphere.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I only know Gerda and it clearly isn't music. If you can find the source, that would be fabulous. I totally get it, not really my field either, except the legal aspects, which fascinated me and are what hooked me. SusunW (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • SusunW: It took quite a time but I finally found the source about the name here. Note 138 on page 86 reads: "Dieser ist die berümte ehemalige Mademois. Maria Dorothea Derrier. Als ich diesen Menschen untersuchte, trug er bereits Hosen. Sein Name lautete in seinem Mund weder Derrier, noch Dörje, noch Dürje; sondern so, wie ein Mittelding zwischen diesen drei Names nach ihrer lebendigen Aussprache lauten würde; daher ich ihn ersuchte, mir seinen Name auf ein Papir zu schreibem. Er that es, und schrieb Dürrge." Or in English: "This is the famous former Miss Maria Dorothea Derrier. When I examined this person he was wearing trousers. His name when he pronounced it did not sound like Derrier, Dörje or Dürje but rather a mixture of all three names as they would sound in living language. I therefore sought to have him write his name on a sheet of paper. His did so and wrote Dürrge." Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Ian. I love that statement. Trying to describe how something sounds is almost as hard as trying to describe what it tastes like. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: Then don't you agree that this makes it look as if her family name had always been Dürrge and that Derrier (which is certainly not German) is simply the way others thought it should be spelt?--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense, especially given that Sera said in the dialect of Berlin the two were similarly pronounced. Any idea when this event took place? I scrolled up one page and see the date 1798, but am not sure if that has anything to do with Dürrge, or rather if it is 1820 when Feiler examined him. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: Looks as if it was in 1820 (or shortly before) when Feiler published his findings. If Feiler actually examined him in 1820, then that is the date.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! SusunW (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

women scientists categoriesEdit

Hi, I see that you are creating categories like "Spanish women neuroscientists". Why would those cats be non-diffusing? That means that someone would be in "Spanish neuroscientists" and at the same time in its subcat "Spanish women neuroscientists" (is "women neuroscientists" grammatical?), which doesn't make much sense to me. I'm also not so sure that a neuroscientist's gender is a defining characteristic, but if it is, why not also make a category "Spanish men neuroscientists"? To me it seems at least mildly sexist to split women off in a separate category as if it is somewhat unusual that a woman would be a scientist at all (it isn't, of course). As you see, I'm confused... :-) Any guidance will be appreciated. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Randykitty: Thanks for bringing this up. Over the years, we have tried to emphasize the increasingly important role women are playing in various fields. While it was generally agreed that categories such as "actresses" and "sopranos" were genuinely feminine, many objected to differentiating between women and men is categories relating to more general areas such as scientists. The problem was solved by including women in non-diffusing categories which demonstrate the part women have been playing while not diminishing the listing of women in categories covering both men and women. I must say that I spend quite a bit of time ensuring that women listed in these non-diffusing categories are also listed in the main categories to which they also belong. Perhaps Rosiestep would also like to comment here.--Ipigott (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to be offensive, but I find this somewhat demeaning. "Poor little things, we have to help them by emphasizing their contributions"... I realize I may be opening a can of worms here. My approach (here and in Real Life) has always been to treat people as if they don't have a gender. (At least when that gender is irrelevant to their accomplishments, such as is the case for scientists but not for beauty pageant contestants - another pet peeve of mine...) Anyway, I've removed some articles from the "XXX neuroscientists" categories when they were in the "XXX women neuroscientists" categories, but if the consensus is to have them in both, I'll revert that (tomorrow, no time today any more). Still, I'll be interested to hear what Rosiestep has to say. --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty and thanks for the inquiry. The decision for these types of categories to be in non-diffusing categories was made in 2013 after a lengthy RFC period surrounding Category:American women novelists in order to avoid "ghetto-izing" based on gender. The press covered the issue back in April-May 2013; here's an example. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I faintly recall that brouhaha. I find the solution chosen misogynist and insulting to women, but I really don't feel like restarting that particular discussion again, so I'll reluctantly conform to consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Randykitty: I fully understand your concerns, especially as you have created quite a number of articles on neuroscience and related fields. Nevertheless, I think it is also important to point out that until Keilana created wp:Women scientists back in 2012, women in science were "woefully underrepresented" (as she put it) on Wikipedia. This and similar initiatives, including a considerable number of editathons, have significantly improved the situation. From reactions I have received from other editors over the years, there is considerable support for these "non-diffusing" categories, not only as they provide a convenient way of monitoring progress on our coverage of women but, perhaps more importantly, they show those researching developments in science and technology that women are in fact significant contributors to fields which are generally supposed to be dominated by men. We have also tried to emphasize women's roles by timelines such as Timeline of women in science. From the article on the history of neuroscience, it looks as if women have been completely absent from key developments. Perhaps with your help, we could try to rectify the situation. You'll see I've restored cat Spanish neuroscientists on Carmen Sandi. I'm afraid that under the rules for Non-diffusing subcategories and as a result of the case Rosie mentioned, it is important women are also included in the appropriate parent category. Thanks once again for your interest in all this. If a significant number of other editors share your views, it might be appropriate to modify the rules. At Women in Red, we should certainly avoid any kind of misogynism.
To address your other point, on whether "women neuroscientists" is grammatical, I must say that as a Brit I would prefer "female neuroscientists" but I am informed by American editors (e.g. SusunW who can be considered an expert on the matter), that "women" is now widely used adjectivally and is considered to be more correct. So I've simply adopted that approach which is in fact widely used, not just for categories but more generally on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the detailed explanation! --Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Oei Hui-lanEdit

 On 5 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oei Hui-lan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Madame Wellington Koo (pictured), the Chinese-Indonesian First Lady of pre-communist China, was featured as a "woman of style" in a 2015 fashion exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oei Hui-lan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Oei Hui-lan), 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) 00:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Maria DulębiankaEdit

If you have time, a copy edit would be lovely. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

SusunW: Great article. Improved my understanding of women's rights in Poland. Made a few copy edits but nothing very significant. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the "women's gymnasium" ... for girls. Perhaps it would be better to call it simply a girls' high school facilitating admission to higher education -- or something similar. And in the last section: "for establishing the first girls' high school in Lviv". I'll leave it up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Ian. I especially love that you found the link for that Paris expo. I was unsure of where to link it. It was hard as most of the sources were in Polish and I was bouncing back and forth between it and the class-A review. I found her story fascinating and was quite surprised that there were no other Polish suffragists on our list. High school is fine, I'll just keep the link the same to gymnasium. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you should certainly keep the link to gymnasium. I've linked so many times to the 1900 Paris expo that I knew where to look for it. To make it easier for others, there should perhaps be a few redirects to it. I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with the images in the A review. Unfortunately, all the old experts on images have stopped editing. If there are no offers of assistance over the next few days, I'll try to help you out myself although I am certainly no expert at image tagging. Nikkimaria can be very helpful in assisting with article expansion but she's not easy to deal with in reviews. If you are interested, you can see what difficulties I ran into with the FA review of Carl Nielsen. But don't give up. We'll sort things out and as far as I know there's no time limit.--Ipigott (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I spent most of the day communicating with the commons help desk. I think I am done with the photo review, but probably not. We'll see what happens. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Aletta JacobsEdit

 On 11 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aletta Jacobs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dutch physician Aletta Jacobs's legal challenge to be added to the Amsterdam electoral rolls backfired, leading to a constitutional amendment granting voting rights to men only? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aletta Jacobs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Aletta Jacobs), 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) 00:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Women footballersEdit

Personally, I don't have a list. However, for the Adidas event, this list was created and used. There there's the WikiProject Football list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Open tasks. Hope that helps. -- KTC (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, KTC, that's in fact what we had assumed. I noticed you created a couple of new biographies yourself but it would be interesting to know if there were any others. Was the Adidas event at the end of May a one-off occurrence or are there plans to continue cooperation? We may well try to make women footballers a Women in Red priority, perhaps in August. By then, there should be a fair amount of additional information available for the biographies. Would August be a good month for you or do you and your colleagues have other preferences? You might like to respond to the discussion on the WiR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Hovine ArticleEdit

I noticed that you removed the tags for the talk page of Jeanne Hovine, saying that those tags are meant only for the talk pages of articles and not of users. However, Jeanne Hovine is indeed an article, not a user page. Could you please revert that edit? AenDire (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, AenDire, and thanks for altering me. I've restored the tags and am of course happy to see you have become a member of Women in Red. I've added a redirect to Hovine from Anne-Marie Ferrières and included her in the List of Belgian women artists. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Anne Skorecki Levy ArticleEdit

One of our Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion editors RosPost submitted her first full article on Anne Skorecki Levy. Wondering if you could take a look at it. She attended our edit-a-thon in Vancouver and was able to then get the biography posted. However it was rejected. Clayoquot gave her some good suggestions. Anything else you could add would be appreciated. ThanksDzingle1 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dzingle1: At first sight, it looks pretty good. I'll take a closer look tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Dzingle1, the article has already been approved. RosPost posted the first paragraph in Article space, someone moved it to Draft space, RosPost put the full article into Article space, and someone redirected the Draft space page to the actual article. The article that you've linked to is the live article visible to all Wikipedia readers. Ipigott, I think Dzingle1 was confused because she saw a message that the article had been moved to Draft space. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Clayoquot, Thank you for clarifying. And thanks to both of you for your help. Dzingle1 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Józefa JoteykoEdit

I have finished, except for the photo. I may have to upload a fair use image. The one that is on commons is not as far as I can tell in the PD in the US (70 years from 1928 publication=1998, after URAA). While I grant you its source was published in 1930 and did not give an author, the same image, credited to A. Deloge, Brussels, Belgium was published in Praca Szkolna on 31 May 1928, vol. VI, no. 5, pg=Cover Now it may be that Deloge died prior to 1928, but all I can find out about him is that he was a "famous professional photographer in Brussels". I thought I might have found another image 1896 but it is the same photographer and the only publication I can find was also published in 1928, pg 4. Maybe they were published in France or Belgium, but not sure how to look as French is muy difícil. If you could give it a copy edit and weigh in on the photo dilemma that would help. If I have to upload one as fair use, the older or the younger? SusunW (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

SusunW: Why don't you think the image was PD in the country of origin in 1996? If so, it qualifies for PD-1996. As far as I understand the rules, it does not matter when the author died unless the image is considered to be a work of art. I'll go through the article for copy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Once again you've done a good job on someone who really deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Have you read this lengthy account? Although it's in Polish, the Google translation is not too bad. It puts a great deal of emphasis on her pedagogical work. Perhaps this could be emphasized rather more in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
By some accounts, she appears to have lectured at Warsaw Un2iversity from 1926. Looks from here as if it could have been the Free Polish University.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, if I learned anything from that ordeal, it is that where/when it was made is irrelevant for US copyright unless it is over 120 years old and you can prove it was never published. What matters is where it was published. Poland's rule is 70 years after death or 70 years after publication and it was that as of 1996. Thus, the photo published in 1928 was not out of copyright until 1998, meaning that it cannot go into the PD in the US for 95 years, i.e. 2023. So my options were trying to find an earlier publication date. I have spent the last 2 hours paging through the records at Gallica and bingo! I found a 1901 publication which has the younger picture, which is clearly in the PD in the US based on the publication date. Still need the author's death to determine if it is in the PD in France. But I'm looking. When I solve the photo issue, I'll go back and look at your sources. Truly appreciate your help and yes, I was surprised there was no article given that there are sources in English. SusunW (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Great picture research. Well done! Not sure I agree with all your reasoning on Polish images but no doubt arguments along those lines would be invoked by Nikimaria if ever you were to go for FA! Did Poland not sign the Berne Convention? I see from Copyright law of Poland: "All photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain" and "According to the Art.21 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) photographs lose copyright protection ten years after picture was taken." But if you don't go along with that, then your photo is much safer.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I suspect those photos were published in Belgium or France and subsequently in Poland. On Deloge I found this [12] which kind of indicates he stopped photographing in 1914. Now I am searching Belgian archives. Uffff SusunW (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I come up with Alexandre (can't be him as he died in 1900). Alfonse (1856-1914), but no clue if he was a photographer. Two Arthurs – one born in 1862 who was unemployed in 1919 and the other who was a writer born in 1880. And then I found this which lists Anatole, Alexandre, and Antoine. Note it gives professions and if I am not mistaken says Antoine (born 1878) is an engraver, which correlates to the information in the Directory of Belgian Photographers' page. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
That didn't help me either, as I find no trace of him. So, I am going to upload it as an anonymous photographer since the French version of 1901 is different and add the info that Deloge may be the creator. I also fixed the licensing on the other one and the PD tag for Poland says what you said. SusunW (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot open what you have marked as "this lengthy account". I just get a message that it is blocked, even though I also tried to not follow the link, but instead just paste the main page in my browser. If you think there are pertinent things in it, please feel free to add them, as obviously I barely touched the surface of her career and there is tons more that could be written. (I also think she was a vegetarian, or at least wrote several articles about it, but they were all in French and not in text, so impossible for me to do anything more than skim them.)
SusunW: I actually posted the text on this page but then deleted it as there could have been copyright problems. You can no doubt find it in the history. Look at the edit version which has a semblence of format. Before I make any major changes, I would like you to look through the text and tell me whether you think her educational research is worth emphasizing further. If so, I'll make a few additions and perhaps something on critical assessment. But I can hardly find much time to work on it at the moment as we seem to have visitors here all the time! It should be quieter next week. Glad you have now included an image beyond reproach!--Ipigott (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I came here to thank you and saw that it was gone. (We had a huge swathe of plaster crumble in our bathroom yesterday and I was busy cleaning up the mess.) Was actually just reading it now, as I figured that out ;). Also noted that I can access the link from I do think there is more that can be added and will work on it today. Critical assessment would be good. I also did not list any of her publications, mainly because it was already lengthy, but also because short of her thesis, there was not much discussion of individual articles. Not sure about including them, so your thoughts there would be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────SusunW: : It might be useful to list some of her most important papers, especially if they are available or have been summarized in English. Hope the plaster disaster is manageable. Back on this on Monday. Enjoy your weekend.--Ipigott (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's pretty awful, started in a corner about 5 feet up and runs about 2 feet wide for 6-7 feet. All I could do was move the stuff out and vacuum all the plaster so the workers who hopefully come on Monday can repair it. I cannot hardly reach the damaged spot without a ladder, so my husband had to knock down the remaining loose stuff, while I swept it up. The lime mortar used on these old houses is typically crumbly and INAH will not allow use of more modern materials. So it is a somewhat frequent occurrence, just usually not this bad (or high up). Enjoy your weekend, and your company. SusunW (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I think I covered the material, but please look it over. Found a picture of Stefanowska that I think is better than the one previously uploaded and is how she would most probably have looked when Joteyko knew her. Am looking for photos on Grzegorzewska and while I have found several, not yet sure they are usable. SusunW (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
She was indeed a vegetarian, and apparently had a partner between Stefanowska and Grzegorzewska. SusunW (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

C-class article?Edit

Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I started the article on Katherine Hughes (activist) (though many other editors have helped to make the article as it currently is). Anyways, since it's on my watchlist, I noticed that the article has been changed from start class to c-class. Does that have anything to do with the DYK nomination or is c-class a different thing? Clovermoss (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I figured it out by looking at the quality link. I was a bit confused between the differences in class qualities. Sorry to bug you, I should have noticed earlier. Clovermoss (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Clovermoss: I gave it C class rating on the basis of the ORES assessment. In the case of this article, it was a clear C. The rating is based on length, presentation, sourcing, inline refs, etc. and the absence of critical tags. I probably picked it up as it was nominated for DYK. I'm glad to see you are already a member of WP:Women in Red. I hope you are finding the project helpful. We look forward to many more women's biographies. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ! Some stroopwafels for you!Edit

  Thank you for your recent ratings work on women's biographies! SunnyBoi (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, SunnyBoi. Just what I need to peck me up at this time of day. Many of your articles were seriously underrated. You've been producing some very good work. Keep it up!--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!Edit

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:

Initiatives we support:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging


Well, that's one WiR member the less, some 7 hours after your welcome! Maybe it is is a bad week, cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well he only just joined so it doesn't really make any difference. Rather a pity actually. I was looking forward to some new bios on women wrestlers from Singapore. But don't worry, he'll soon be back.--Ipigott (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup, already. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Newsie and the LadyEdit

Hi, can you translate the reception from es wiki?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you're being productive again. I've just translated the Spanish. You can no doubt find sources if you look for them. Rather busy with other things at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt editing! It's just extremely time consuming significantly contributing to Wikipedia. To fully get into it you really need to spend a few hours on here. The amount of work needed is staggering!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Lebanon women's national team GA reviewEdit

Hi, I've read your post on the WikiProject talk page about Women in Red. I have added a lot of information about the Italy women's national football team, especially about Italy at the FIFA Women's World Cup. However, my work here on Wikipedia mainly specializes in Lebanese football and, unfortunately, there isn't enough information online about player statistics to be able to create their own articles. I have, however, improved Lebanon women's national football team and have nominated it for GA. I was wondering if it were possible for you to start the review? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nehme1499: Thanks for all your efforts. I'm sorry it is so difficult to find sources for the Lebanese team. Can't you find sources in the Lebanese press? These would be acceptable on the EN wiki. As for the GA, you certainly seem to have done a good job on the article but I have never actually specialized in sports myself. Perhaps one of those who read my page will offer to review your the article. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the sourcing, there are no reliable Lebanese sources for player statistics (male or female). Only one Lebanese website, that I know of, keeps track of players but it only relates to male players. As neither the Lebanese Football League nor the Lebanese Women's Football League are "professional leagues", the players who play there aren't deemed notable by Wikipedia. Meaning, the only way a Lebanese player (who plays domestically) can be added onto Wikipedia is for them to play internationally for their national team. There are multiple websites for men, but none for women (at least, not global. There are some websites for English, Italian, French etc... statistics but obviously none for Lebanese). National-Football-Teams and Soccerway have very detailed statistics on male players, but nothing on women. Therefore, as much as I would like to add Lebanese women who have played internationally, it is impossible to verify them. As for the GA, do you know someone who specializes in women's football who would like to review the article? As of now it's the only article relating to women's football that is GA nominated, so it would be nice to take care of it. Thanks for your time, Nehme1499 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Penny Richards: I'm really out of my depth on people who might be interested in reviewing Lebanon women's national football team for Nehme1499. If you are too tied up yourself, could you recommend anyone? As you know, I think we need to do more to promote interest in women's sports and GAs are a big help. Thanks, btw, for Myra Bradwell Helmer Pritchard and the impressive images. Great start!--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott: Wish I could help, but I honestly don't know a thing about women's football or GA review.Penny Richards (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Penny Richards: Don't worry. You're obviously in the same league as me. I've been looking around and think I have found another volunteer. I was simply responding to your interest in women in sports and your "Rv" status.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott: I don't think I've ever tried to write about team sports. It sounds very difficult compared to biographies of individual athletes in solo sports. Glad someone is taking this on! Penny Richards (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeni Bojilova-PatevaEdit

I think I'm done with it, but it needs a copy edit, if you have the time and inclination. Not sure it should be named this. I thought "Ж" = "Zh" in which case English sources giving the name as Zheni Bozhilova-Pateva seem more accurate. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot, she supposedly was made "„Почетен член на Международния синдикат на демократичните писатели” във Франция през 1931 г." (an honorary member of the International Union of Democratic Writers in France in 1931). Any ideas what that might refer to? SusunW (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope that all is okay with you and you are enjoying time away. GRuban concurs that it should be Zheni Bozhilova, per Romanization of Bulgarian, but I have no idea how to make a redirect the article and the article title a redirect. SusunW (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: I'm rather tied up at the moment. I'll look at this as soon as I can. It might take a day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no rush Ian. Glad to know you are just busy irl. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: I've managed a quick copy edit but unfortunately no not have sufficient time to look into the other issues.--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It's fine, Ian. I am working on other things, so when it is convenient to your schedule we can pick up the conversation. SusunW (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • On the transliteration, I would keep to Jeni Bojilova-Pateva as the main title as it looks more English but I have added Zheni Bozhilova-Pateva as a common transliteration in the lead. I think that should take care of the problem.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • On the International Union, I wonder if it could have been the Union internationale des écrivains révolutionnaires, founded in 1927, although I see the Bulgarian version clearly uses "democratic" rather than "revolutionary". See also Association des Écrivains et Artistes Révolutionnaires. I see the date of 1931 is mentioned here but I can find no other sources.--Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: Forgot to ping you on the above.--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you've hit on it! The Union was described as "Fonds français de l'Internationale Communiste"[13] and I know from writing about other women's groups that associations behind the iron curtain often used Democratic in their title to show inclusiveness, not representative governance. The membership is also a claim made in Stoyanova's article, so I think we're good to include it. SusunW (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Adele ZayEdit

My unexpected suffragist for the month. If you have time or the inclination, can you give it a copy edit? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

SusunW: Another great find. I'll continue copy-editing tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: Finally managed to find time for it. In addition to your references to "ethnic Germans" in the text, it may be useful to add a brief note on Transylvanian Saxons. Up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. I'll look at it again. SusunW (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Added a bit to the early life section about them. Also working on some photos. I am really, really stoked as I found an actual photo of the Institute of Irma Keméndy from the time period when Zay worked there, just not sure how to upload it, so am awaiting assistance. And then I found a copy of another of her works that is clearly PD, as the ones on German.wp were not published prior to 1924.SusunW (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Marie RennotteEdit

Yet another surprise suffragette! I wish I had more info on her early life, but have found nada. Also seems like her archive and all of her photos are kept under lock and key by the Geographical and Historical Society. Even the College photo on Flickr has all rights reserved. :( Perhaps you can find a few details from Belgium? SusunW (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I finally found a book that is in the PD. It doesn't have a photo of the school when she was there, but at least it has a photo and confirms that the one we had on Martha Watts is in the PD. So, now I am working on Watts. SusunW (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: Pretty busy with a full house of family guests at the moment but I'll get back to this as soon as I can.--Ipigott (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Enjoy your family time. It'll be there when you are back. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: Just managed to complete it. Not much to copy edit.--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Ian. Really appreciate your fixing my spelling errors and smoothing out the text. SusunW (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: You get better and better at expressing yourself. As for spelling errors, I can't remember any in this one but like many of your compatriots, you often misspell the past tense of lead as lead instead of led and often write effected instead of affected when it means influenced. But I'm always happy to copy-edit your articles. I always find it an interesting, educational experience. Just rather busy at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The one that stuck out for me was foreign, but there is a pub down the street that has giant letters saying foreing, which always makes me laugh. I finished Martha Watts, if you'd like to give it a go-over. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: July 2019Edit

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: July 2019

Opening ceremony of the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup, Parc de Princes, Paris, June 7, 2019

Hello WOSO editors! What a 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup in France! There has been a lot of activity on tournament- and player-related Wikipedia articles with all of the worldwide coverage of the tournament and its players. Let's keep the momentum going.


WikiProject Women in Red is focusing on Women in Sports during their edit-a-thon for July & August 2019.

Get all the info here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/126

Sign up and help fill in the gaps within various articles related to women's football / soccer - whether they be players, teams, leagues, historical, administrators, referees, etc. Every little bit helps. Be sure to tag your article talk pages with {{WIR-126}}.

These edit-a-thons are a great way to work with others to help bridge the gender gaps on Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions!

Did you know...

WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY (which only includes the players in two currently active women's leagues)? Often times there is enough media coverage that meets WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. For more information, see WP:WOSO#Notability and be sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}

Current and upcoming seasons for top-division leagues

Have some new articles in mind or see some that need improvement? Add them to the Open Tasks.

Was an article you worked on nominated for deletion? See:

Want some tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors?
Leave a message on the task force talk page.

Thank you for your continued contributions to articles related to women's football / soccer (WOSO)!

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force

Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

DannyS712: Thanks for the additional publicity. It all helps.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

First attempt on a bio pageEdit

I have not used the talk page before - so apologies in advance if I am doing it wrong. I checked the status of the Véronique Dehant page, and it looks like there is a two month backlog. I am not sure if I should start another one ??? Best regards, Klarson_GPS (which I think I did with the four tildes).Klarson GPS (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Klarson GPS. Your article is well up to standard. I have therefore moved it to mainspace. You might find it useful to look through the edits. We look forward to more along the same lines. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Klarson GPS (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you for reading and expediting! I will definitely look to see the changes. I have some ideas for the next person. I am going to stay in my lane for now (women scientists and engineers). But I have always loved history - and particularly history of science - so may do some there in the future. And then when all else fails I can update the GPS sections of Wikipedia ;-)

Return to the user page of "Ipigott".