User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 55

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Rosiestep: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! Happy New Year, to you and yours! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2021!

Abishe (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, Abishe! Happy New Year to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A wish for the new year

A quote from Gargantua and Pantagruel by Rabelais; it is taken from the manuscript of Jules Massenet's opera Panurge, in the composer's own hand. It is my greeting of choice for the new year, because it encourages us to live joyfully, and try not to take life too seriously...while quaffing whatever beverage we choose, naturally. This has been a challenging year, to say the least; I hope that 2021 may bring a fresh start, and better days ahead. May the new year bring you joy and peace...and many days of fruitful editing.

--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. That's a great quote! Happy New Year to you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've always loved Panurge despite its flaws - it's a very late work in Massenet's output, and yet he was still able to look back fondly on life with a quiet smile and a good deal of warmth. Perhaps that's why I've always been partial to the quote, which is also the final line of the opera. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2021

	2021 : better new year!
	Nattes à chat

Thanks, Nattes à chat. Better New Year to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Gender bias in relation to women writers

Although Kirsten Menger-Anderson's article on "The Sum of What? On Gender, Visibility, and Wikipedia" was published almost a year ago, I have only just come across it. I think you will find her comments on women authors particularly pertinent, especially her claim that "Of the 31 authors, playwrights, and poets that Wikipedia recommends should be included in every language version of the site, none are female." As a specialist in this area, is there anything you can do about it?--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this article, Ipigott. I wasn't aware of it, though I am aware of the findings mentioned. What I can do is to talk about the findings in future interviews, and I shall. Thanks again. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lots of questions (Women in red)

Hi Rosiestep! I'm a fairly new editor trying to figure out how to contribute to the climate and environment edit-a-thon. I don't know where the discussion is at and how I can ask questions as a newbie. I tried the talk page, but nobody has responded. I also tried to make notes beside my created pages, but I didn't get any response there, either. My main questions at the moment: (1) I don't know how to get copyright free images for the scientists. One image I got was from her memorial webpage. (2) I don't know how to manage references when they're mostly in Chinese, not English. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks!!! FlybellFly (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, FlybellFly, and thanks for stopping by. I'm really pleased to know that you are contributing to the Women in Red's climate and environment edit-a-thon. A really good place to ask questions related to creating women's biographies for this editathon and/or any other instance is on the Women in Red talkpage, which currently has 540 "pagestalkers" who have various levels of expertise in the topics you mention, e.g. "copyright free images" and "managing references in Chinese language". I don't have particular expertise in these areas except that I mostly work on biographies of pre-20th-century women so their images are almost always Public Domain. I reviewed your recent contributions. The biography on Hou Youtang seems very good. I removed the Stub template and added the DEFAULTSORT template. The biography on Kuo-Fong Ma is also quite nice. I added the "authority control" and DEFAULTSORT templates, and deleted the stub template. The references for both seem to have been handled fine, but I don't read or write Chinese so I don't feel like I can be of any help in that area. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I do hope you ask your questions at the Women in Red talkpage; and in the meantime, keep up the good work!! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, thanks so much! This is very helpful, both the pointer and the feedback! FlybellFly (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool, Gerda Arendt! Happy 20th Birthday, Wikipedia! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Cute little film on the occasion! - Proud today of a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Awesome photo. I assume that listening to the music was wonderful? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It was! The second soprano is our conductor's daughter, and I wrote about tenor and bass years ago, contralto to follow. I was in place again three more times (see my talk), always impressive. The Magnificat opened the year, DYK-wise, but then came the discussions on the talk I could do without, telling me that German grammar doesn't matter for English naming. Cats would understand better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Which Greenwich, New Jersey for Rebecca S. Nichols?

The article you created for Rebecca S. Nichols says that she was born in Greenwich, New Jersey (which is fully sourced in the books and obituary in the article) and has her placed in Category:People from Cumberland County, New Jersey (without a source). There is a place Greenwich Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey, but there are also Greenwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey and Greenwich Township, Warren County, New Jersey (and even East Greenwich Township, New Jersey). Do you have a source that places her in Cumberland County? I can't find anything to narrow it down further. Alansohn (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Alansohn. I have doublechecked the sources and did some further research, but can't find anything to support which county in New Jersey. I also researched her father, Dr. E. B. Reed, hoping there might be a mention of a county medical society, but to no avail. So I've removed the category. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

Number 1!! ... and the template worked, thanks to RexxS What do you think about Fanny Mendelssohn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, every year, you remember this anniversary, and every year, I am humbled knowing that I was the first to receive the Precious Award. Thank you so much! As for Fanny's article, I REALLY enjoyed reading it and learning about her life. With a smile, I noticed some parallels with mine, e.g. parental views on profession vs. hobby for a young woman. I see that the article is under GA review and I don't want to get in the way of that, but would it be okay for me to do some light editing -adding commas- in sentences such as, "In 1826/1827 Felix...", "Throughout March 1847 Fanny...", "During the 19th century Fanny mainly", etc.? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is mostly by Smerus who did a peer review for which I came too late. He then removed the stable infobox and put the article up for GA, with a comment on the talk implying that the feature is now up to him and a GA reviewer (vs. the community). He is a friend of mine, we almost met in person, which makes it harder. Why not give us foreigners ("idiots") this little service? Sure, some don't "need" it, but the blind don't "need" images, and we still offer them to the others. - The commas are a UK/US thing. --- Too late: Flyer22 Frozen died. Much more too late than the other, of course. --- Positive: a garden, expanded yesterday in honor of a friend with whom I was there when she was 4 ;) - I like these little personal connections. Woman of the day today Anne Bierwirth, pictured in the center of my recent pic on the Main page, tough to find sources. The Rondeau ref is an awful list of famous names, - I hate them. She is also pictured on this year's pic in the infobox of my user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - You lost me at "idiots". Who is the idiot and why would we refer to anyone in that way? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In the terminology of the infobox wars - which I had hoped soooo were over (if they ever existed) - some users (not Smerus, afaik) would call the thing not infobox, but idiotbox (search), implying that it's good only for idiots while others can read the prose. My stance, however, is that idiots also deserve to be served. An infobox is a different approach to facts, and - being parameter-driven at predictable positions - much easier to access at a glance than the "beautifully crafted" prose of a lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Ok. I didn't know that. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

All women articles I create get an infobox (unless I forget), and some made it to quality such as Jessye Norman and Clara Schumann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem here was that I worked up the article and submitted it for GA review, and did not feel I could honestly make that submission with the infobox, which I think detracts from the article. After the GA review is over (either for or against) it will of course be open to anyone to move on the talkpage for an infobox, and I am sure that that discussion will be carried out equably. Whatever consensus is established I will of course support. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for coming over, David. I am sorry that to this day I fail to understand why a feature that is meant to help, and seems to work well in the GAs mentioned (Norman and Schumann), would "detract" - but possibly that will remain unresolved. I haven't counted my GAs, but know there are several, none without an infobox, and I don't recall any complaints. (One, however, was failed, and the reviewer removed the infobox, which saddened me more than the failure - Stabat Mater (Dvořák) - and then he took a lead image from my personal history which made me really angry which I should not confess I guess.) - On a more positive note: GA BWV 1 is linked from Bach Digital, an achievement I'm quite proud of, and with infobox. Comments to the FAC welcome. Back to Fanny H.: in the talk page discussion, several users of some stature endorsed the infobox, and the reservations by sadly missed Jerome Kohl seem more about one parameter (occupation) than the infobox per se. The removal after several months of stability hit me out of the blue. I really had thought the time of "live and let live" (quoting Voceditenore) had begun, and all arbitration candidates agreed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I like to see a "fresh" GA, composer's bio, Jörg Widmann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the tremendous contribution Gerda Arendt continues to make on Wikipedia's coverage of music, including her masterly use of infoboxes, it seems to me that as Smerus is responsible for over half the article's content and is directly involved in the review, we should let the matter rest for the time being.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, I am letting it rest regarding the article, far from reverting, or even beginning something on the talk. What I don't want to let rest is my wish to understand how an infobox would "detract" from the article.?? I am sure that a user who comes for detail will find it, even if there is a device also helping some other user to easily access where she died. Many infobox discussions I've seen argued as if it was infobox or lead. I haven's seen any discussion in 2020 - and am happy about that so am just disappointed to have to face the topic again which was declared solved in 2018. David. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For clarity - and , if I may say, to contextualise some aspects of Gerda's perspective above. The infobox was inserted, without previous discussion on the talk page, by an editor who reworked the article as part of his university assignment. An editor (not me) raised the issue here and Jerome Kohl in fact (as you will see if you look) moved to delete the infobox, and this discussion did indeed take place in 2020. It is not for any of us to characterize JK's motive in moving for deletion as merely a concern about one aspect of the box's contents. I supported his proposal to delete. Three editors opposed removal, including Gerda: one of them, RexSS, in opposing wrote "I would normally defer to the main author of an article, in this case, Smerus, but the infobox was added by a relatively new editor... who has recently made very significant contributions to the article, and I think we owe it to him to try to explain the differing opinions on the value of an infobox in the article." But by this time this new editor had already left the scene; he never contributed to any other articles before, during or after his college assignment, or responded to RexSS's comment, and his userpage now shows him as retired.

The resulting article seemed to me to require improvement in various ways, and I have sought to provide this. Gerda knows that I find infoboxes inappropriate, as superfluous and unacceptably reductionist. I would and could not therefore have submitted the article for GA with an infobox. I explained this on the article talkpage. The right place to carry this discussion forward, if anyone wishes to do so, is on the article's talkpage when the GA decision has been made.--Smerus (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for a good summary of what happened. It did not explain (to me) what "detract from the article" means, but will let it be. We know that an infobox looks superfluous to reductionist to you, but you could still grant one to others who look for some specific reduced information. I hate infobox discussions so will do nothing on the article talk page. I'd still like to understand the phrase, but up to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

6 million articles anniversary

What I came to say, Rosie, is that 6 million articles was a year ago OTD! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Gerda Arendt, today is the 1 year anniversary. Thanks for remembering.♥ Lots and lots of edits to Toofie's biography since then, and a much-improved image. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for registering!

Hi thank you for registering to our event on the 27th of January and welcome! Here is the link to the project page where you will find all the informations to join on the 27th. Project page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Les_sans_pagEs/Lesbians*_during_the_Holocaust. To receive the zoom link and the password, you have to send us a mail (all the information is on the above project page), please make sure to do it !Nattes à chat (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

PS Rosie if you dont have time I suggest you make sure to attend the first part which will include a presentation done by an LGBTIQ archivist and activist from Queer Code. Kuddos, thank for your support. Nattes à chat (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nattes à chat. I registered. Then I sent an email to the address provided, but it bounced. Help. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me on telegram which mail you used? I have given Leila your email and you should receive it ! Nattes à chat (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nattes à chat, received it today. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

@Rosiestep: "Clacissists"? Think I fixed it. Wyliepedia @ 15:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo

Hallo Rosie, Is there a way for MassMessage to fix a typo? "Clacissists" is now glaring out from a lot of people's talk pages (I've edited mine). Just wondered. Easily done with a word like that full of hissy sounds. Happy New Year, stay safe, PamD 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed the note above... PamD 15:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@CAWylie and PamD: I am so sorry for the typo! Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it once the MassMessage has been sent. I think it's time to improve the process regarding sending out the monthly invitation -- we need more people to review it (plus the newly-created meetup pages and talkpage templates) than just the ones who have bookmarked the Women in Red schedule planning page, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming up for February. Starting next month, I'll put the request for review on the main Women in Red talkpage. Again, sorry; I feel really bad about this. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think, since it's not a template, that it can't be fixed once sent, as in “now you see it [the error], now you don't". Would be cool if a standard one could be created and just drop the monthly data in, but I'm not (much of) a coder and don't know how to do that. Wyliepedia @ 16:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a way to fix this with AutoWikiBrowser...I'm not sure it's worth it, but it's a possibility. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have time and inclination, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, to fix the typo via AWB, super! But by no means am I suggesting that anyone goes out of their way to fix a mistake I should have caught before massmessaging hundreds of talkpages. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't take too long - I can do it tonight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And that should be that. Think I've caught it almost everywhere. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Ser Amantio di Nicolao; I am impressed and thankful! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to be of help. Wasn't that many, really - about a thousand, I think? :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, close to it. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

Learning how to talk in Wiki, your talk page is impressive :D --WikiVeniVox (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiVeniVox, thank you. Glad to meet you and I hope you like editing Wikipedia! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, yes! So far, so good! --WikiVeniVox (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello from Platywiki !

Nice to participate in this workshop with you :) --Platywiki (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Platywiki. Glad to meet you and I hope you like editing Wikipedia! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence has been nominated for renaming

Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Women memoirists

All taken care of. :-) Sorry it took so long. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A big thank you, and no problem with the timing(!), Ser Amantio di Nicolao. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your many edits improving categorization of women writers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Grand'mere Eugene. I really appreciate that you noticed what I've been doing, and I love the barnstar! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Camp Spaulding, California

The article Camp Spaulding, California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:GEOLAND, only references are GNIS which is known to be unreliable, and Durham which the person who added it to this article is known to have systematically misquoted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:55, February 2, 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elmina M. Roys Gavitt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Elmina M. Roys Gavitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://archive.org/stream/womanofthecentur002516mbp/womanofthecentur002516mbp_djvu.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. User3749 (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi User3749 and thanks for stopping by. I'm trying to understand your Speedy Deletion Nomination of the Elmina M. Roys Gavitt biography on the grounds of "possible copyright infringement". The source you reference is in the Public domain. It was linked to the public domain document on Wikisource. The citation at the bottom of the article used the source-attribution template and contained the elements commonly included in a public domain citation (e.g. not a bare url). While I note that you removed the "possible copyright infringement" template 2 minutes after placing it, this note on my talkpage remains, so I wanted to respond and also to hear your perspective on the matter. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rosiestep Hi, the ref is in the public domain and the edit has been undone already due to later seeing that it is in the public domatin. Thanks User3749 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, User3749. That's what I needed... acknowledgement that the reference is PD as your Edit Summary on the article page (Undid revision 1005185388 by User3749 (talk) not sure if it is in the public domain or not but just in case removing CSD) was ambiguous. It's cool now. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• See also: Talk:Elmina M. Roys Gavitt#Public domain reference. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red: Participants vs. Members

Hi Rosie. Hope things are improving for you in California. I'm a bit concerned about the replacement of Members by Participants on the main WiR page and on the "cards" people complete when they join the project. Maybe you've authorized the change but as far as I remember in our recent discussions in connection with the distorted membership list, we tried to keep the distinction between members and participants. If you think we should now call our members participants, then I won't pursue the matter further but at a time when we are insisting on membership for contests, etc., I personally think it would be better to maintain the distinction. Perhaps MarioGom has further information about all this.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott. Thanks for bringing this up. No, I wasn't involved with this change, and indeed, there is a difference between "members" and "participants". Hoping that MarioGom (or perhaps a pagestalker) has some insights. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Ipigott: The change was done in the templates by SMcCandlish. There's further background about it here. We can probably add some parameter to these templates to use members instead of participants. --MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In the light of the discussions we had with SMcCandlish earlier where I explained that for Women in Red there was a clear distinction between members and participants, I am surprised he simply went ahead and changed members to participants on the cards (Participant since...) and a few days later substituted "Participate" for "Join WikiProject" on the registration box. Unless we can restore the use of members, we're going to have to make a number of changes on our main page and on all other pages where we encourage people to join the project as well as in hundreds and hundreds of user boxes. And what about all those who "participate" regularly in the project without wishing to become members? Is it usual for background changes of this kind to be made without discussion with those concerned? It was my understanding that before such actions are undertaken, they should be clearly presented, discussed and ultimately voted for or against. Interestingly, the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject clearly refers to members (and has done so since 2012).--Ipigott (talk)

SMcCandlish, please let us hear from you; thanks. Ipigott, can this conversation be transcluded or some such onto the WiR talkpage for greater visibility by our members, participants, and pagestalkers; thanks? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, to catch up on this stuff: The general matter is that wikiprojects are not private membership organizations, and virtually all problems that have arisen in relation to them have stemmed from people trying to make them operate that way. So, we've been moving (not very programmatically) to "participate/participants" instead of "join/members" language. The fact that this has not proceeded at a lightning pace and changed every relevant page yet is immaterial. These things have been discussed before, at CfR and RM and so on, and we do not need to have a re-re-re-discussion of the matter on a page by page basis, because the problem remains the same (cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:EDITING policies; no one needs "permission" to make such conforming changes).

However, this particular project is doing something quite unusual and unanticipated, which is distinguishing between wikiproject participants and event participants. I think the solution to that is probably just spelling that out, in those words. (Or coming up with some other term for event participants – attendees, contributors, etc.). It would be best if "participant[s]" were reserved for the on-wiki sense, since when all projects are consistently using it, that will make for easier templating and bot behavior and so on. That is, the better of the two possible places for a wording divergence is in the odd case of the off-site events, not the standard case of on-site wikiproject participants. Anyway, there is no big hurry, especially if the WikiProject X code needs massaging to stop using "members" in the first place. That actually seems to be the primary vector by which "members" and "join" re-spread after years of shifting to "participants" and "participate" (or "sign up" or "add your username" or whatever). Given that it's a dead development project (i.e. something that did not get sufficient community consensus to survive), it's not dispositive of anything, just an aging problem to fix.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, SMcCandlish. Note, we're continuing the conversation on the Women in Red talkpage here. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi can you please check

User:Vinod Aacharya created Aditya Gadhvi which was previously created by user:Sunilbutolia as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Gadhvi, the pattern of User:Vinod Aacharya is suspicious as a UPE as you can check his user page which is a copy paste of Barnstars and awards to create illusion, I would request you to have a look at this, Thanks Dtt1^Talk 08:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Variations on an apostrophe

I see you have created the following two articles, the only difference being the type of apostophe: Northwestern University Woman's Medical School and Northwestern University Woman’s Medical School. I think Wikipedia usually prefers the simple ' apostrophe but it's the second one you have developed most. It looks to me as if you were not aware that both had been created.--Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's official; you are my hero, Ipigott. I was flummoxed when I created the two versions towards the end of the day and didn't bother to slow down and sort out what I had done. The article title now includes the modern-day apostrophe and I've deleted the other version. The article was meant to fill a gap in acknowledging the 3 name versions of this defunct hospital as I referred to it in multiple women's biographies earlier in the week. Plus: I wanted it to have a stand-alone article because of some WikiCommons work I'm doing. Thanks, again. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

3D printing

{question does a [[3D Printng]] design count as a work} if it has been manufactured at least once} --TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)please though please I do not you to be mad for the question I am guessing your not I got a lot of accounts because it is too hard for me to get a new password--TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TimPatAlPostma1996. This is a good question for the WP:Teahouse where there are lots of veteran editors who are expert in different areas and love answering these sorts of questions. Just click the "Visit the Teahouse" button on your talkpage and you'll get to the right place. As for having "... a lot of accounts because it is too hard for me to get a new password", that's not a good situation. Please ask for assistance at the Teahouse regarding this issue, too. Happy editing! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• • message to tea house or what you call it i just wanted to be clear who vandalised because i have good habit of going to the talk page for any thing i add in general , if i was something signed , when it comes to signed things i only edit what i signed and no one else's and that is a promise & cheers a cup of tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help with biographies etc.

Hi Rosie, you asked if it "would be okay if I reached out to you, too, regarding German language sources from time to time." Absolutely! You may also suggest articles which should be transferred into German and haven't been created. Can I use fotos from english articles when I create a German version? Besides Septima Poinsette Clark, I hope to be able to produce something worth publishing on the inventors Sally Fox and Nancy Johnson, as well as on women involved with genetics (which I studied for a bit): Ann Tsukamoto, CeCe Moore, Barbara Rae-Venter... however I have to limit myself to doing one thing at a time, despite the fact I'm really happy that I had a much better start this time. My last visit ended rather apruptly as some naggers took me apart, or at least it felt like that to me, my mentor didn't care to comminicate and I didn't know precisely what I wanted to do and how I wanted to contribute. So, this time it will surely work out much better! Greetings from Germany Llydia (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Llydia; thank you! Regarding fotos in en.wp articles... If the foto was uploaded to WikiCommons, it can be used in any language Wikipedia article. If it was uploaded directly into en.wp, it cannot be used in other language Wikipedia articles. For example, click the foto at the top right of the Septima Poinsette Clark article and you'll see that you are still in en.wp; ergo, the foto cannot be reused in other language Wikipedia articles unless it meets the requirements to be transferred to WikiCommons and someone has the time/inclination/know-how to do so. I am not an expert with that. The Nancy Johnson biography (it's a different person than you are referring to, but I'll use it as an example) includes a foto in the top right and if you click on it, you'll see that it takes you to WikiCommons; ergo, it can be reused in any language Wikipedia. Does this make sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Rosie, this is really helpful! So I chose a random article from my not-available-in-German list, clicked on the pic and landed on a page that is marked with the drop-like design representing WikiCommons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Taylor#/media/File:Elizabeth_Taylor,_late_1950s.jpg so I assume adding it to other language versions would be permitted. Pictures where the copyright has expired would also be ok, I guess - such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craco#/media/File:Craco,_1960.jpg Then I dicovered that WikiCommons can be searched, however when I looked for Septima Poisette Clark, this is the only image I found: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_American_Innovation_One_Dollar_Coin_South_Carolina_Proof_Reverse.jpg, unlike the portrait you mentioned above, which has the warning printed right underneath. So, thanks to you I have the knowledge to avoid my initial pieces of work from being deleted or complained about for copyright infringement - THANK YOU! Llydia (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, Llydia, and my bad for not mentioning previously that WikiCommons is searchable, just like Wikipedia. One more thing: if you find a Wikipedia article with an image that is housed in Wikipedia and are unsure if it meets the criteria for inclusion on WikiCommons,there are people who know the answer and also know how to move the image to WikiCommons at Women in Red. Post your question on the Women in Red talkpage here. Since establishment in July 2015, 806 unique editors have posted on that page. There are 546 page watchers, each with unique skills, geographically disbursed around the globe. In the last 30 days, there have been 4,338 pageviews of that talkpage. Mostly importantly, it is a harassment free zone on Wikipedia. Happy editing. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I begin contributing to WiR?

Hi Rosie! I joined the WiR project and have been reading about it but I'm not sure how to begin. I want to participate in the Africa contest. When I create an article, how does it get labelled under WiR project? Aneth David (SLU) (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aneth David (SLU). Thanks for joining the WiR project! Begin by creating a new article regarding women (biography, women's works, or women's issues). If you create an article within the scope of WiR's Africa contest, you can add the associated talkpage template to the article's talkpage. In the case of the Africa contest, it's {{WIR-186}}. Here's an example of a talkpage which has the template. Relevant talkpage template info is included at the bottom of each WiR event page; Africa contest example here. Hope this makes sense. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask either here or the Women in Red talkpage. Happy editing!

P.S. Also, add the article to the relevant WiR event page in the Outcomes section; Africa contest example here, as adding the talkpage template to the article's talkpage doesn't automatically add the article to the event's Outcomes section. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosie! Thank you for the instructions. I finally get around composing 1 article under WiR project. I couldn't get the talk page template right, and now the template has been removed.

I used:

It wasn't displayed correctly, I guess that is why it was later removed? Here is the article Mkunde Chachage. I will improve it a bit more before moving to another article but I would like to understand how to use the templates correctly first.

Also, how do I add "the article to the relevant WiR event page in the Outcomes section", in this case #1day1woman page?

Thanks Aneth David (SLU) (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aneth David (SLU). Thanks for creating the article on Mkunde Chachage. You can see the edit I made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMkunde_Chachage&type=revision&diff=1016530220&oldid=1016529945 . Hope this clarifies what to put on the talkpage (which in the case of #1day1woman is {{WIR-00-2021}}). Your work is appreciated. Keep writing! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Just one more month left of Women in Red's Women in Africa contest

Hi Rosie, thanks for signing up to Women in Red's Women in Africa contest. An update, now that we're two months in: over 100 articles have been created in January and February! Please help make the final month of the contest a success too :) Dsp13 (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reminder, Dsp13. I think it's awesome that you're doing this. Also, Happy Women's History Month 2021! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And most definitely Happy Women's History Month 2021 to you too! Dsp13 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hostbot invite to tea house logo questoon

Why is the logo different in the hostbot invite message then on the tea house itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeobrianjr (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikeobrianjr. Thank you for your question. I don't know the answer, so I asked over at the Teahouse. Someone will probably respond soon. Happy editing! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Mikeobrianjr. Nick Moyes has an answer to your question here. Hope this helps! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/AARWR/1000 Women in Religion March 20, 2021

Hi Rosie,

This is Rosalind from 1000 women in Religion we have a meet-up through the american academy of relgion western region conference on March 20. I have a project page and dashboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/AARWR/1000_Women_in_Religion_March_20,_2021

I wonder how we can get a few experts to join us? And I wonder if we can post on your Women's history month page? I have a dash board also on the meet-up, but will have to send the zoom out to women who have not signed up for the conference and want to do the zoom. I am working out the logistics.

I posted the event on a Women in Red Page I thought, but it doesn't look like your current page. It had all sorts of women's organizations on it. Frankly I can't find it now. --Rosalind Flynn Hinton 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosPost (talk • contribs)

Hi RosPost. So nice to hear from you. I checked out your upcoming event, Wikipedia:Meetup/AARWR/1000 Women in Religion March 20, 2021, and it looks cool. I see that you also posted it here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Announcements, which is perfect. Regarding how to get more experts (assuming this means veteran editors?) involved, I'd suggest the following. If you have questions about any of this or seek some assistance, just let me know.

• Post your project and upcoming event here: m:Gender gap/Initiatives.
• Join the WikiWomen Telegram group where most of the off-wiki conversations (content, editors, events, etc.) regarding wikiwomen occurs. If you are already on TG, just let me know your TG name and I'll add you. TG has becomem the most popular place for wikiwomen to announce their upcoming events, ask for support, ask questions, etc.
• If you promote your event on Twitter (before, during, after the event), and if you include @wikiwomeninred, we'll retweet to our almost 10,000 followers. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best, --Rosiestep (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thanks for your help. I am trying to get to Wiki Telegram, but don't see a way to sign up and my Wiki handle isn't working. I am also working on the social media with colleagues and will make sure we have you on the posting list. --RosPost 19:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi RosPost. Sorry for not sharing the link previously. Here's a link to the Telegram website. After you have registered for a Telegram account, if you let me know your Telegram account name, we can get you added to the wikiwomen channel. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Telegram

Now you have me on the latest - nongoogle and facebook messaging service. Here is my handle @Ros329--RosPost 20:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• RosPost, great! I have invited you into the WikiWomen TG channel.  :) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Telegram and Wikiwoman channel

Hate to bother you, but Telegram signup is @Ros329 Were you able to add me to the wikiwoman channel Is it on Telegram?--RosPost 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

RosPost - Yes; it is on Telegram. On the Telegram channel called WikiWomen, I added: @Ros329. Hope to see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

George Celino Barnes?

I got a chuckle out of this edit of yours... Machine Gun Kelly was George Kelly Barnes — did you inadvertently confuse him with that one law firm (RIP) that paid for ridiculous phone numbers and flooded the airwaves with their vapid ear-worm jingle? Funny! -- Y not? 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OMG, Y. I'm clueless about that as I made the edit in 2012. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I owe you. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on Julia Margaret Cameron article

As someone who has contributed substantially to this article, I invite your input on an RfC asking: Should the infobox use the original photograph of Cameron or a version modified by a Wikipedia editor?

Thanks in advance for your input. Qono (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red metrics

I see, Rosie, that you provided stats on our metrics page for WiR articles up to September 2020. I was wondering if you could provide a total for 2020 and perhaps an overall total up to March 2021. Also in connection with metrics, I have not been updating the metrics list for March 2021 with non-biographical articles about women and their works, etc., as Tagishsimon felt rather strongly that I was upsetting the automated statistics retrieved from Wikidata. This is likely to have two consequences: a) the metrics for March 2021 are likely to be substantially lower than those for March in previous years; and b) the month-by-month figures for the number of new articles listed here should be the same as those from Humaniki as they are based on identical criteria. It therefore looks to me as if there is little point in continuing the Metrics pages, particularly as there are only seven page views per day for the main Metrics page and only three per day for the current month. We could perhaps replace Metrics by Biographies per month if participants are really interested in seeing whether their new biographies have been included. What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, I've updated the Metrics page through February 2021 and added a header for Totals at a glance. I also gave myself a Calender Reminder for the 2nd Saturday of each month to update this section with totals from the previous month.

As for whether the Metrics page should include all articles within the scope of WiR or just the biographies, personally, I lean towards being inclusive (including them all) but that's not to say that's the best approach. I think what has worked well at WiR is to support concensus... even when that zigs and zags. For example, in the first year of WiR, @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW and I updated the Metrics page by hand, and we included all articles within the scope of WiR, not just the biogrpahies. When this became an automated process, I recognized that the bot was adding biographies and editors were adding the non-biographies, and I thought that was just fine. But I see Tagishsimon's point of view, too. In the end, I support whatever decision is reached by consensus. Adding Victuallers as I lean on him for all things math-related. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I see both points of view, but like Rosiestep, I would fall on the side of inclusion. As I have said before, none of the articles I am writing on women's nationality are biographies, but they are incredibly important to provide context for why women's history has traditionally been obscured, why women were unable to gain rights, and how ridiculous it is to try to categorize women by nationality, since for the most part, historically, she had none. The nonsensical decision to exclude ethnic identity for women in article ledes makes no sense to me, but that's another topic. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also contributed to all the gnoming in the early days and realized from the beginning of the bot-related additions that only the biographies were being picked up. I have therefore since then been relying principally on Alex New Bot to pick up all the related articles but perhaps I should be spending more time on creating more new articles or mentoring new members of the project instead. Going through all the new additions day by day does nevertheless reveal lots of interesting new articles from participants who can then be encouraged to join the project. Many of the most important additions, including all the non-biographical articles by Megalibrarygirl and SusunW are usually included in the meetup listings but these are independent of our metrics.--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you were the most prolific at continuing to add these related articles Ipigott. You continued long after I gave it up. I am completely torn in wanting to err on the side of inclusion, providing accurate measurements for our entire scope, and freeing up your time. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It actually doesn't take all that much time: two or three sessions of about 50 minutes each every month. And that includes quite a bit of side-tracking on assessment, categorization, etc. One option to keep everyone happy might be to list the non-biographical additions separately.--Ipigott (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, those articles are so important! It would be a shame if the consensus is to exclude them (and all the other articles about women's works and women's issues) from the metrics.

Ipigott, you're idea of a separate section seems like a splendid solution. I wonder what others think. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur. If two lists is not a problem, I think we should track our progress. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, I secondly concur. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'll put something together tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've created a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Non-biographical/March 2021. I'll complete it as articles are listed for the rest of the month.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ipigott. That's a lot of articles, and we're not even done with the month yet. How do you suggest that we link the "Non-biographical" metrics page(s) to the main Metrics page, e.g. separate section? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should perhaps wait for a few days to see how things develop but if everyone is happy with this approach, we'll need to rewrite the introduction on the main metrics page, explaining why we are embarking on this alternative and providing a link. I have also been wondering whether we could use the same method of alphabetic ordering, including deletion of duplicates and red links, as for the bot-driven listings. Perhaps we could raise this on the main WiR talk page at the very beginning of April.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ipigott, --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)