Open main menu

Women in Red's April+Further with Art+Feminism 2018Edit

Please join us as Women in Red and Art+Feminism continue our collaboration in April 2018. Continue the work you've done in March and pledge to help close the gender gap in April! All you need to do is sign up on the Meet-Up page below and list any articles you create in the month of April.

April+Further with Art+Feminism

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

April editathons at Women in RedEdit

Roundtable idea: Being wrong when in the minorityEdit

The topic is the middle target: How do you deal with a correct decision (in red) which don't align with the social minority's desires, in a way that convinces the social minority that bias was not at play in that specific case, while also recognizing that bias is at play against the social minority in other situations (purple).

As a unrelated followup on the brouhaha, there's a discussion I've always wanted to have, but always felt somewhat discouraged from approaching as it is an somewhat uncomfortable topic and I've had some pretty hostile reactions to it, given it focuses on a rather uncomfortable issue. So I wondered if/how we could have a sort of round table discussion based on the general premises that

  1. You have a conflict/dispute involving social majority vs social minority
  2. The social majority is correct / The social minority is incorrect
  3. Both social majorities/minorities are acting in good faith

with the open question being "How can the social majority convey to the social minority that they are wrong about something, without causing (or at least minimizing) reactance in the minority and accusations of bad faith/biased behaviour, which may in turn cause reactance in the majority?" Or more simply "How can you tell someone of a minority group you are wrong, without them feeling there's an implied ... because you are not part of the social majority in there somewhere?"

It's not a well-formed idea in my mind at this point. I don't even know if the terms I used are the best as far as framing the question is concerned. But I figured I'd bounce the idea off of you and that you'd know some people that'd be interested in this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb I think it's a useful discussion to have, especially since Wikipedia is made up of more people in the social majority as editors. I know some editors feel that if we didn't disclose our identities online, were completely anonymous, it would stop the problem. I disagree. I think our diversity is a strength if we choose to embrace it. I really do understand where you are coming from. The story I mentioned on the Fram page about saying some really well-intentioned things to African-American acquaintances was really humbling and uncomfortable. No one wants to feel stupid and I went away feeling very stupid and small. I felt a little unwelcome, too. Looking back, I learned a lot from it, though and I'm a better person because of it. But do we really have to put everyone through that? I don't think so.
So if we had a roundtable discussion about being sensitive to the 3 issues above, what would it look like? I might advise considering the following:
  1. Invite social minorities to identify language that they find problematic in Wikipedia discussions. Please clarify "why" it's a problem and how.
  2. Encourage interaction between both (or more) groups so that we can understand and appreciate our differences
  3. Teach all editors the differences between critique of ideas/work vs. personal attacks -- this one is so hard. I have a BFA and part of getting that is showing your work and listening to criticism of it. At first, it's difficult: you feel like it's about you. Eventually, you learn that it's not about you: it's about making your work better. This, I think, is a problem for all humans. We all have to learn how to communicate and accept criticism. It's not just a majority/minority issue.
As an editor, I rarely feel that anyone is treating me differently because I'm a woman. (Rarely.) I have also been through a lot of processes that have taught me to have a thick skin. Perhaps we do need to coach our editors on how to separate work from personal attack. Having a thick skin is a benefit, though I'm not saying that teaching people to have a thick skin means that we should continue to encourage people to run around and act incivilly because they feel like it.
I really appreciate your dedication to working towards some kind of solution for this issue. I really feel like you care a lot about how people feel and that's awesome. Maybe when things calm down a bit more we can look for a good place on Wiki to bring it up together. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I really appreciate that the two of you are beginning a conversation like this. I would like to point out one fallicy in the points if I may and if it will not cause contention. Correct and incorrect are polarizing positions. In reality there are many truths and each of our different experiences may lead us to equally valid conclusions. This is where I find most difficulties originate, as often the assumption is that "for me to be right, you have to be wrong", if views differ. (me and you here is illustrative and not directed at any one person). I personally don't think developing a thick skin has anything at all to do with civility, in fact quite the opposite. I am fairly sure that I do not have such a thing, but it would not generally occur to me to go into battle with someone simply because what they said made me uncomfortable. There are always ways to be open and kind. I welcome your continued discourse on the topic. SusunW (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW I really appreciate your point about binaries. You're right: there's a lot of times when there is more than just the options of "correct vs. incorrect." It's a fallacy to assume there are only two options. I'm not sure how to phrase some situations into a multiple truth statement, though. :(
I agree, too, that not everyone needs a thick skin. I'm glad I have it, but quite honestly, it's come at the expense of a lot of pain for myself and it also means that today, I have a harder time expressing certain emotions. Not everyone wants to make that trade. For me, it works and for anyone else who wants to learn, I think we could find ways to teach people how to accept criticism better in ways that aren't as extreme as developing a thick skin like I did. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Well, that's not really a fallacy more than it is the premise. Some disputes have a side that is right/correct, and a side that is wrong/incorrect. It's not all disputes that can be broken in that way, but if you are arguing "2 + 2 = 5" against "2 + 2 = 4" (as the numbers 2, 4, and 5 are normally understood to mean), then you are wrong, and the other side is right. It also doesn't mean that if a side is arguing "Delete" and the other side arguing "Keep" that either sides are right/wrong in a binary way, and that other options superior to both keep/delete don't exist (such as merge).
So see 'correct' as shorthand for "the Wikipedia outcome that would result from an impartial and bias-free application of platonically ideal principles of encyclopedicness" and 'incorrect' as not that outcome, rather than sides in a debate about if it is preferable to eat crimes against humanity, nasty-ass horrors, or slices of pure heaven.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb your pizza analogy seriously made me laugh. I promise you I won't ever argue about math(s), but I did once have a logic class wherein the exam was to write an essay on "Is it logical to assume that a man and a chicken are one and the same thing if the only thing you know is that they both have two legs?" While maintaining that my answer was "wrong", the professor gave me high marks, because my argument was that the very fact that they were called by different names brought in an element that two legs was not all that was known. What I was trying to convey is that context matters. SusunW (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well I wouldn't do well in such classes because my answer would just be a terse "Being the same thing means they are identical in all aspects, if you only know that one aspect of each thing is identical, you only know it meets a necessary but not sufficient condition to declare them the same thing." And then I'd have moved on to the next question, and continue to hate philosophy classes. Unless it was a formal logic class, which I would hate for entirely different reasons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW and Headbomb: Did someone say "pizza?" *perks up* I guess there's something in all this, though, especially relating to the chicken and the man question. Are we also trying to solve a problem where we only have minimal information? What if part of the problem is that different people see logic, and therefore, right and wrong ways of doing things differently? We might have to figure out how people are looking at disputes in more detail. I'm the kind of person who in a dispute wants a workable answer... even if it's not a perfect one. There are others who want all of the details hammered out in disputes, whereas I'm often happiest in securing only the issues that are most important to me and letting the others sort themselves out. Maybe there's a way to figure out "What kind of editor are you?" and then use that as a tool when approaching others. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if you meant the specific details of a prior dispute, but I'm purposefully avoiding connecting this to anything in particular. While there is a prior dispute/experience that inspired my desire for a conversation, I don't want the conversation to be a rehash of the old dispute. I more or less want to be able to have a good-faith discussion free of aspirations, and have both social minorities/majorities to able to raise uncomfortable points for the other sides.
I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a (male) therapist mostly working in the field of domestic violence, who also teaches in the field of social work. As a man, working with the other (offending, male) side, so to speak, his perspective and insight is also one that is unlike most you'd find in a women/gender studies department. He once had a dispute with a (female) colleague about something that involved uncomfortable truths that were unfashionable in a gender studies' department. And then tried to, making amends would be the wrong term here, but have some sort of dialogue with the person that flipped out because if you can't tackle gender issues from the men's side in a gender studies department, then where the hell can you do that? How do you protect yourself from becoming an echo chamber when you only allow half the stories to be relevant?
This isn't to say, of course, that one ought to give the same credence to an assaulter's story than the assaulted's story in terms of "who's in the wrong" here, but he's also dealt with several men that found themselves at their wits' end because they were accused of doing things they didn't do, or because of female-on-male violence (both psychological and physical). He eventually managed to mend things and convince her that the dialogue was worth having because understanding motivations of those doing wrong helps a) understanding how such violence arises and thus lets you tackle how to prevent it, beyond simple-minded things anti-bullying campaigns or other fashionable but ultimately ineffective hashtag-driven feel-good stuff b) let's you rehabilitate offenders c) helps contextualize the female experience; but also understanding men who have been wronged also helps you understand men in general, and not only men who are shit.
So I'm hoping to have something of a similar discussion here, where everyone can walk away with new perspectives, and where social majorities can better see where the social minority side is coming from, where their own bias can come into play, where the social minorities can see how individual action of social majorities aren't necessarily wrong/biased simply because they happened to be against's the social minorities' preferred outcome or happened to be inline with a historic bias, and how social majorities can better frame "platonically ideal" decisions in a way that doesn't make the social minority feel wronged, or make it clear that it's not a perpetuation of a historic bias. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I like your story about the gender studies department, Headbomb. It's definitely possible to get entrenched in a way of thinking that doesn't reflect something true, but rather something we wish was true. And as a feminist, you are not just fighting for women's rights, but also for women to be fully human. That means acknowledging that women can be awful, too. Sometimes, I enjoy working on those kinds of women's articles just because I want to understand those women better. Men's stories are certainly and obviously valid, and I think a big trend overall is to acknowledge that patriarchy hurts men just as much as women. Men are often discouraged from expressing emotions or share difficult situations with others. Socially, they have to keep so much hurt inside of them. Women often do the same thing, too. I wonder if our reasons are the same? I suspect some might be. I know the APA has recently created some guidelines (here) for working with boys and men. It's pretty interesting.
I wonder about Platonic ideals, though. While I find them interesting and if you've ever read Anathem it makes for a very interesting premise, I don't know if it's possible to get there. That said, I don't think that just because we can't create a perfect way to communicate that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
I think a lot of issues that social minorities face is that they have to constantly prove their legitimacy over and over again. This legitimacy is often just assumed for the majority. It makes everything a little harder because you're having to add that extra step. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Now with spiffy graphics! THE FUTURE IS HERE! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb it looks like a bunch of dart boards have measles! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Headbomb: How do you think we can start the kind of discussion we've been having above with the rest of Wikipedia? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure honestly! It's one of the very few areas on Wikipedia that I'm a bit flumoxed mostly because I don't know where anything like this has been done before. An RFC on one of the village pump could work, but I feel this should probably be it's own page (+advertised in a lot of places, mailing lists, etc...). Framing this as a roundtable/community consultation/whatever might also be more productive than framing it as an RFC, which will make people want to have an outcome/formal closure in the end. enwiki is hurting a lot now, and tempers are high, so I'm not sure if this will not become yet another page for the current brouhaha to spill over, or act as balm and calm tempers. Might be a good idea to wait till the upcoming board statement and see how things evolve from there. While this is technically independent from that discussion, a lot of themes will be paralleled.
Hosting the round table somewhere on meta might work too, although if we do that, this might affect participation. In what direction exactly, I don't know. Personally I'd want to hear more from the minority side than the majority side because the question I want the answer is one the social majority isn't really well equipped to answer, so whatever forum we settle on, I'd personally want the one with the biggest minority outreach potential.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel @GorillaWarfare, Rosiestep, and Ocaasi: would have a lot of insight about this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The idea is intriguing, but the venue (onwiki) is likely off-putting for the participants you'd like to engage. Time and time again, women have said they will not express their opinions onwiki because they don't want to be targeted, hounded, or more globally, it doesn't feel safe. These were common views in 2017 when I interviewed 65 gender diversity leaders, and this continues to be the perception with regards to the current situation. With the right facilitator/moderator, though, it might make all the difference, for example, an academic focused on gender studies and/or collaborative knowledge production (such as Mssemantics). That said, I'll be a participant in a wiki-focused research symposium in August, representing Women in Red, and perhaps there might be some interest from those in attendance to look more closely at this idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm not thinking just women/gender related issues (although this is by far the flagship of this), but really any social minority from indigenous folks, to white people living in Japan, to Global South vs Global North, non-Anglos on enwiki, non-Germans on dewiki, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, I see. Yes, that will bring in more voices. I like the idea of hearing from immigrants, also senior citizens. Might this type of roundtable research to gain insight into social minority points of view fall within the scope of the Diversity Working Group, @Camelia.boban and SusunW? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Headbomb is onto something. We just need to find the right venue to discuss and get a good cross-section of editors to weigh in. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's partly why I use the term 'social minority', because whether or not you're part of one depends on the space you get involved at. I'm not part of the social minority on Wikipedia as whole. I am the typical Wikipedia editor, white, male, mid-30s, higher education, part of the global north, technically and technologically proficient. And I have access to technological resources (I edit on several machines, my main one being a ~$5000 machine, with two 27 inch high resolution monitors with extremely high visual fidelity) beyond those of most editors. I'm not only part of nearly every social majority on Wikipedia, I'm privileged event amongst them.
But when I get involved at e.g. WIR, I enter a space where I'm no longer part of every social majority, as WIR is mostly women. Likewise when I try to do some outreach at frwiki, while I speak French natively, I'm French-Canadian (Acadian to be specific), which puts me at disadvantages with the mostly French of France crowd over there (both linguistically and culturally). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks to me like is the kind of venue where such a conversation could take place. Vexations (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Camelia.boban, SusunW, Headbomb, and Rosiestep: what do you think of the suggestion from Vexations? I've never used that space before. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, It's still very new, but a few people are starting to use it. Perhaps readers here find this discussion interesting: I haven't used it myself yet, but have been in touch with people that have currently use alternatives to on-wiki discussions (Slack (software), in my case). It's an interesting effort by the foundation to create a platform that supports civil discourse by design. Vexations (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm a member of a few Slacks, so I'm comfortable with how that works. But I'd support trying out this new space. One question: as it's a wiki space, how private are the private areas? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I am pretty not technical and um probably not a typical editor. Headbomb and I have only 2 characteristics in common, and for the most part, I disclose nothing about myself in this platform, other than I live in Mexico, and am an immigrant. Never heard of that space, but I'm willing to give it a try, depending on how effective it is in protecting one's privacy. I really think dialogue is a prelude to solving the majority of the worlds' problems. While we may not be able to fix the issues, if we can forge understanding and empathy for divergent ideas, we may create a better learning environment. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(EC) I'm relatively neutral. My initial instinct is enwiki, because it's bigger, it's how I naturally operate, it's where there's the most people, and enwiki would benefit a lot from this. But Rosie has a good point about enwiki turning off some people who's feedback would be very desired. Additionally, a neutral space might be better to include others from commons, wiktionary, wikidata, frwiki, dewiki, and the rest of the international crowd etc... So if a non-enwiki thing is desired, then I'm for whatever is simpler and gets the best feedback. It doesn't have to be a wikipage, it could be threaded conversations, it could be interviews, it could be a lot of things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: I'm sure we have a lot more than only two things in common. One of the world's biggest mistake is to limit commonality to broad categories, rather than ideas or goals. Regardless of where you stand on the topic of pizza, I'm sure we'd both like to see improved coverage in several areas, even if we're not personally interested in that area. I'm sure we both consider Wikipedia to not be a zero-sum game, that we both believe that improving coverage in one area does not need to come at the expense of another area.
One thing I like very much about Wikipedia, it that it is a great equalizer and every time I encounter someone I picture them as amorphous blobs of flesh. I'd like to say this is intentional so I don't let my bias creep in, but the reality is that I'm just lazy and can't be arsed to remember what boxes people would tick on a census for pretty much everyone but those I closely interact with on the daily or have met in person. I once said I gave zero fucks about what gender people identify as, but that extends to pretty much every other broad category you could define out there. I don't care if you speak Spanish or German. I don't know or care to know if SusunW is a name, a nickname, a variant of Susan, a local artist, or an award-winning brand of local beer. I don't care if you're Mexican or someone that immigrated to Mexico. I don't care if you're disabled or abled. When I'm on Wikipedia, what I care about is getting WP:1Q right. And I think you care about that too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(Well, not quite true. I would care to know all these things, to the extent that they can be leveraged for the purpose of WP:1Q. If you're colorblind, you become someone that can offer valuable MOS:CONTRAST/WP:ACCESS-related advice. If you speak Spanish, and work as a financial advisor, you can read Spanish sources and make sense of Financial mumbo jumbo.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC))
LOL, Headbomb I was speaking only of the attributes you mentioned. I am sure there are more commonalities, as we are both humans and care passionately about improving the encyclopedia. (Also, I speak Spanish, but read it better. I can count to 100 in German, but that doesn't help with much conversation. French is impossible — I can only count to 15. I don't drink beer and prefer Greek pizza, thin European style crust. I don't work as a financial advisor, never did, but I am an excellent saver and a terrible spender. There are few things more tortuous than shopping.)
Headbomb I am so glad that we are having this discussion here. It's a positive light in a very dark time right now and you've lit the torch! Do you think we should go ahead and set it up on the page Vexations suggested? Then we can invite everyone in this discussion and maybe post something on CENT? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD for Amy SequenziaEdit

It appears you were not notified that the article is at AfD a second time. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: thanks! And wow, has that article been through a lot! :/ Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what on earth that AfD was about. I rewrote the article, citing sources that I've used time and time again to rescue / improve stuff (hey, I read The Guardian, doesn't mean I'm a yoghurt-eating beardie-weirdie does it?), Megalibrarygirl did a bit too, and a whole bunch of people voted delete on something completely unrelated to WP:GNG. Oh well, shit happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: it looks like since facilitated communication is a discredited idea, that the biography might be violating BLP. I figured if there was an Oxford volume on her from 2018 that meant there was some legitimacy to her claims. But I'm not an expert at all. I wonder if Dodger67 or others at WP:Disability might have a better idea of what's going on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I've just had a go at reading the AFD. The closer's conclusion seems reasonable. If we accept that facilitated communication is discredited nonsense, then all sources based on anything suposedly "said" by the subject are by definition unreliable and must be exluded per BLP. If the loss of such sources results in an unsustainable article, it must be deleted. However, I'm not sure if an article based around the idea of Sequenzia as a victim of charlatanry (within the limits of WP:AVOIDVICTIM of course) might be possible? (I think PamD's argument is pretty convincing.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective, Dodger67. It makes sense what you're saying. Since there was the Oxford thing in 2018, it made me think that there was something legit going on. The Oxford book talks about her using a special iPad, so I figured maybe that was more legitimate. It's all pretty sad and frustrating. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I meant a keep but on retrospection, think, that we are better off w/o an article about her. The band-gap between providing our readers with a scientific narrative and abiding by BLP policies at the same time, is too low for editorial comfort. Also, Balkan (the author of the Oxford piece) is an ethnomusicologist and not someone with relevant subject expertise.WBGconverse 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Winged Blades of Godric I am definately won over to the side that deleting was the right thing. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention in upcoming issue of The SignpostEdit

Just wanted you to know your name is included in a report about FRAMBAN in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: if they're going to mention my time in the military, they really ought to add how often I've been "Godwined" on that same page. LOL Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
"They" is me, actually ... I'm the author. I threw that part together quickly, so just let me know if there's any nuance about your experience you think ought to be mentioned. I thought of mentioning the Code of Conduct but it has to do with POWs which might raise more questions than it answers, if you know what I mean. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bri: I was just making a joke about the Godwin's law thing. :) I'm glad you're still on the Signpost. The Universal Code of Conduct reminded me of how in the military we have that over-riding code and then individual units can decide to make additional changes (most of which somehow seemed to involve the way your uniform looked at different formations), but couldn't remove anything. I think it still leaves a decent amount of flexibility. I don't think I have anything else to add to the article except to point out that the loudest voices believe they have a "consensus" on Wikipedia. When I try to point out that they don't on the thread, I find that I become involved in rather heated discussions! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The tricky bit is deciding who has consensus in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That's so true, Headbomb. Though I don't think a self-selecting group of people count as "consensus" for Wikipedia. People who are willing to weigh in on that page are not reflective of Wikipedia as a whole. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's certainly not a random selection of random Wikipedians. Whether or not that reflects Wikipedia as a whole, the mainstream Wikipedia intelligentsia, or a cabal/clique again, hard to tell. But Wikipedia is and always has been a do-ocracy (why do we not have an article on this topic?? time to WP:FIXIT!), so it belongs to those who speak up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
My take, worth absolutely zip, is that consensus has various meanings, or should. If one is speaking of a particular article, then that relates to the people involved on that page. If one is speaking of an RfC or AfD, it should involve a broader spectrum and involved projects. For RfA, or something like this where people are proposing to "speak for the community", it should actually actively seek input from the entire community, not just those who speak loudest. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's that WP:CENT notice, as well as the various notices over the various noticeboards. It's a big clusterfuck, and like all clusterfucks, it's often hard to take anything away from it beyond a lot of people are pissed Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Never even knew that existed and I can honestly not recall ever seeing it. And you are absolutely correct, many of our systems appear to be FUBAR. SusunW (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: I highly recommended watching WP:CENT for anyone that has an opinion on anything beyond a specific wikiproject. A lot of the stuff is whatever, but when there's a big discussion popping up, that's where it'll be. Saves you the hassle of watching all village pumps, and 42 different noticeboards, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── WP:CENT is transcluded to a lot of places where (it is hoped) people will see it. For instance: the village pump pages; community portal; most noticeboards, including WP:ANI; WP:Dashboard; and many users keep it on their own userpage. Bri.public (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've got it on my user page... but then I don't usually look at that page to notice any changes. I've now tried adding the template {{Centralized discussion}} to my watch list, to see whether that alerts me to changes usefully often or irritatingly often. PamD 18:23, 25 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

For exceeding expectations as an adminEdit

The Herculean Award
Neutralizing disruption, especially that which stems from
advocacies & COI editing, is like decapitating the Lernaean Hydra
Heracles cried out, and the Hydra responded.
Where there was once one head, two more appeared.

Atsme Talk 📧 17:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Pure pun-ishment. [1]
@Atsme: thank you! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


Morning! Do you have access to the following JSTOR publication, The Southwestern Naturalist or know who does? I need to verify a bit of challenged material in the section Roe in Gar beginning with "When cooking roe"....ending with "to keep the gar eggs safe." Ping me. Atsme Talk 📧 11:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Atsme, I have send the pdf to you. WBGconverse 13:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, WBG!! Atsme Talk 📧 13:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Whoa! Super fast, Winged Blades of Godric! Thank you! :D Glad you got it, Atsme :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of GodricEdit

Hello, Megalibrarygirl. You have new messages at Talk:Demet Demir.
Message added 13:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WBGconverse 13:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


I request that you have a word with David Eppstein. He is an admin, and has advocated that I be blocked for being not here to improve Wikipedia. I already stated recently, I don't want vengeance. Earlier, though I never said it, I only wanted an apology and a warning for the offender. I wouldn't even have asked for them to be blocked. Now, I came specifically to offer constructive suggestions to your social media policy. I have been here since 2011 and have over 32,000 edits, more than enough for conduct issues to surface. I have zero blocks on my block log. I have zero sanctions by ANI/ArbCom, zero topic bans. I have 2 featured articles, 6 good articles, and at least 9 DYKs. It is frightening that David Eppstein could block me under not here to improve Wikipedia merely for offering suggestions, and perfectly emblematic of a "you're either with us or against us" attitude. starship.paint (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 turns up an apparent threat [2]. You are an administrator too. Would you make this kind of comments? starship.paint (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I can email David Eppstein and see what's going on, Starship.paint. However, I don't find the diff you provide to be a threat at all. It's a very pointed suggestion about dealing with difficult issues. David had just written about what he sees as a factual statement for why the AfD happened at all, cites an ANI case and then points out that the AfD is not likely to be the result of sexism at all! He says "My own impression is that the nominator feels that some culling would make Wikipedia's collection of biographies of women stronger, which is sort of the opposite of a sexist reason." In the diff, David is specifically pointing out that Wikipedia is a place to engage in civil discourse. It's not a threat, nor is it a threat to you, so I would not worry about it at all. I too, would feel frightened about being blocked, so I empathize with you very much! I'm not sure of the whole story, but for now, I would focus on your good work and leave anything controversial alone until things are resolved. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I am of course not going to block starship.paint. However, Doc James has done so "for Cross-wiki harassment of WMF staffers after being warned on the inappropriateness of similar actions". I know nothing of this cross-wiki harassment, but taking out-of-context complaints about one editor to a random other editor's user talk page (as here) is not a good look in that context. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
User:David Eppstein to clarify I did not block the user in question. I am, however, reviewing the block in question. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Someone else blocked and you adjusted the block settings. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes exactly... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
David Eppstein and Doc James, I hadn't realized that Starship.paint was already blocked when I responded to them. Thanks for looking into things. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Megalibrarygirl. Yes, I was blocked and unblocked. David seems to be Nostradamus. My thoughts are no longer on this issue, you need not follow up. Thank you for listening and for your empathy. I appreciate it. starship.paint (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem Starship.paint. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello Megalibrarygirl,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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


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


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

Move to draft

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

Notifying users

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


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

Other news

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

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

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

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

The Signpost BarnstarEdit

  The Signpost Barnstar
Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Mail callEdit

Hello, Megalibrarygirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— –MJLTalk 16:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Floy Little BartlettEdit

I'm planning on nominating the article for DYK. I also plan on adding you to the nomination because you helped me find most of the sources, if that is fine with you. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SL93! If you need any help going forward, let me know! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth L. GardnerEdit

 On 12 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth L. Gardner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth L. Gardner served as a WASP during World War II and was the subject of an iconic photo (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth L. Gardner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth L. Gardner), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


are not anyone to consider our issues closed.

Also in light of your inability to check t/p history:-

  • This edit
  • The entire circumstances over here:- An indefinite block followed by complete lack of self-awareness followed by a removal of TPA (due to mass-canvassing) followed by a shortening of the block to 1 month, whence she (probably) convincingly replied to three questions, one of which was:-You respond to my last email explaining in your own words how you will deal with disagreements with other users in the future.
  • The stuff over here
  • Snarky edit summaries like this
  • Miscellaneous battleground and non-collaborative behavior like this and this

In short, a complete battleground attitude whenever someone nominates her stuff for deletion or points out her noncompliance with policies and a neat refusal to engage and learn. Also, the folks at the other side include a lot many different editors and not Fram, whom I have not chosen intentionally.

I have not even ventured out of her t/p (because that's where I pointed you at the first place) and can dig more diffs at ease.....

~ Winged BladesGodric 19:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am a person who can consider it closed if you choose not to engage anymore, as you indicated on the talk page. However, you have chosen to engage, and in a very snarky way. However, snark doesn't bother me. It tells me that you are passionate about this issue. I wish you wouldn't assume what I may or may not think. I don't know what happened between you and Elisa. I wanted to better understand and therefore asked for what you considered the problems. I can look at t/p history but that doesn't tell me what you thought was the problem. Each of us has different standards as to what we consider problematic editing. It's important to know what you thought was a problem specifically so it could be evaluated by myself and others. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Godric, I have spoken to Elisa both on and off wiki. I have explained patiently what her problems were with close paraphrasing and rescued a few of her creations including Allanah Harper and Laura Barney Harding to prove I wasn't some clod-hopping deletionist ogre, and she responded kindly and patiently. There's some off-wiki stuff that you don't know about and I'm not telling you that lead me to give a little bit more compassion towards Elisa, but at the end of the day this is functionally identical to the way I have handled the likes of Eric Corbett, Cassianto and The Rambling Man - treat people with respect and you may be pleasantly surprised, grump at them and whack them over the head with policy laden clipboards, and they may just respond in kind. I will also say that regarding your complaint about snarky edit summaries, those in glass houses should not throw stones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Megalibrarygirl".