User talk:Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2016/March

DYK for Leila Alaoui

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you on Bonny Pierce Lhotka

Thank you on your work on the Bonny Pierce Lhotka article that I created on Saturday-I certainly did not anticipate its nomination for deletion, but it looks like you helped to save the day. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS), it's so frustrating to see people's hard work nominated for deletion. It's interesting to me that Lhotka started working with digital art so early--the 90s! That's awesome! :D I'm glad to help anytime. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Rosetta Barnstar

Wow Susan, that is cool bit of translation from Youtube to ogv and a nice favour. Maybe you can give me a hint how you did it? I could only see how to do it with expensive software. We still need to strip the advert off the front.... I do think this MIT MBA woman is a great role model as she is taking her brains and using them in a tricky country.... when could have a much easier life selling her brains in the first world. Thanks so much. Victuallers (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Anytime, Victuallers. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women in medicine page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Greta De Reyghere

Hello! Your submission of Greta De Reyghere at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! sst✈ 05:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the good idea to nominate, - it was just a bit too early. I re-opened the nom and suggested a different hook, now that it is expanded. (Also: I nominated all my DYK articles except the first one myself ;) - I am sure you can find articles among the newly created for Women in Red whose authors are too shy to go to DYK: help them!) - Please watch if you are interested. As for a QPQ review, for the first five nominations you do you don't need one. IF you want to do one, a comment is not enough, - it needs at least a symbol, be it an approval or a question mark (you can copy from the top, once in edit mode). Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I too am a little shy about DYK, sometimes it's confusing to work on! But I'll get the hang of it. I'd like to be able to help out more. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women artists page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Amber Dalton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amber Dalton 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/Amber Dalton until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Greatly approve of what you're doing on wikipedia and off wikipedia for women on wikipedia. We need more people like you and people who will defend what the women project is doing in the face of idiots. Thankyou. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld. I needed to hear that! Sometimes it feels like a thankless task. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I know what you mean haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It is often a thankless task, but I totally agree with Dr. B. I cannot stomach the negativity of AfDs very often. That you repeatedly evaluate those articles and try to improve them is admirable and appreciated. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW. I just think it's super important because AfD sets precedent for notability. I wish I was more articulate about the arguments, but in the face of fallacious arguments and ever-moving goal-posts, it's tough. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

I'm sorry to say it, but there are an awful lot of entrenched editors on Wikipedia who would rather see editors they disagree with kicked off site than have to work with them. If they decide an editor is in the wrong camp (whatever camp that might be) they can and will make that editor's life hell by reverting everything s'he adds and calling administrators down every time s'he does something incorrect. It's all well-within the bounds of what's allowed on Wikipedia, and it is almost impossible to identify or question (since no one will ever admit that they are reverting edits as a form of harassment). I've seen a lot of new editors driven off the site by that kind of obnoxious behavior. Many entrenched editors view Wikipedia as a source of political power - a way to structure public information to accord with their worldview - and there is no meaningful 'intervention' method on project that will get them to be more encouraging or cooperative. I'm sorry for the politics but you are one of the rare ones and your work is impeccable. I wish there were more women who worked tirelessly to increase content about women into Wikipedia. Bobbyshabangu talk 08:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, Bobbyshabangu! Your words make me smile and I won't be giving up any time soon: librarians are a tough bunch. Lol. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SoMe Barnstar

	WiR SoMe Barnstar
	Megalibrarygirl, can't thank you enough for taking the lead on developing Women's in Red's social media platforms and strategies. Your are much appreciated! Rosiestep (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you

☕ Antiqueight ^haver 19:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Antiqueight, anytime! I'll get cracking with the searches! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Found the date but not a verifiable source - http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=terri_mac_donald&id=I0455 ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 19:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this, Antiqueight: [1]. It's not the date, but interesting! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

RE editing Drafts - Go ahead - that and a couple of other subpages are just for me to remember what I found for people I haven't sat down to write up (for various reasons - sometimes I am not sure where to begin so I store the info somewhere and pick someone else to write up) You are welcome to add to them, names, information etc etc..Anytime. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So-- Most of the women were unmarried at the time of the rising so I have been creating the article under their maiden name. However Mabel McConnell was married and is listed in places by her married name as well. I am not sure a)how to list her and b) what to call her if I call her Fitzgerald on the married name page, since it gets confusing as to whether I mean her or her husband...Have you any suggestions? Check out Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald for details (ps the page really isn't finished as I got tired and the references are a mess. There are hundreds more too but that was where I started to get the main details written down. This was one I should really have drafted first but I didn't realise the documents would take me so long to read and parse. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 01:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Doris Stevens

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

Acid Betty

Just wanted to let you know I think I've finally solved the "hybrid drag queen" mystery that had us both so confused at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Betty a few months ago. Having seen her in action for four episodes now, I think I can now say with some certainty that she's a hybrid of "drag queen" and "club kid". Now if only I could find a proper source for that... Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I wouldn't have guessed that one. It doesn't seem hybrid-y enough. LOL. Thanks for the update, Bearcat!:) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)