April editathons at Women in RedEdit

January 2020 at Women in RedEdit

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153

Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Copyright violations on Chartered Institutes for the Management of Sport and Physical ActivityEdit


Thank you for flagging the copyright violation. I agree with the removal. However, there was other content that was removed that did not come from the website you flagged. This included infobox additions, a new section, and other text in the introduction not related to the vision/mission paragraphs.

I have reintroduced these elements onto the page. I will leave mission/vision absent.

COI on my profile. Happy to add elsewhere if needed.


While it may not seem like the right thing to do, it is convention, when identifying a copyright issue, to do a rollback, which sometimes picks up other copyright issues and sometimes picks up inrelated,a nd non-problematic issues. You are always welcome to restore the non-copyright issue edits.

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••Edit

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,

How we will see unregistered usersEdit


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Royal Indian Air ForceEdit

Can you please review the article on Royal Indian Air Force for any errors. Cookersweet (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in RedEdit

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging


Hey there, as you allow for it, I am questioning your revert edit on my work in process on Kbach. It's a work in process, maybe it was too earlty to publicize as I am still working on the later parts and I have not yet finalized some quotes which, though they have footnotes, need to be adapted better to the article. I hope you are okay if I go on with my work to avoid a useless edit war. Blessings from Cambodia.Willuconquer (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't engage in a edit wars. That said, while many edits might be open to discussion with regard to wording, structure, style and many other editorial issues, compliance with copyright rules is not one of those areas. I believe your edit was a violation of our copyright rules, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
As a follow-up point, you said you were questioning my revert, but you didn't provide any hint as to why you disagree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy we are both peaceful about this. I agree in the current state, the page may have needed a edit revert. However, I did indicate that it was a work in progress. The references were provided to show I was not going on a "copycat" work. Many quotes were being considered for rewording and empty sections were going to be filled in. What I suggest is to under to reversion and let me one week to finish my work on this article and assess from there. Thanks for your help in making this article better. Willuconquer (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
In the very early days of Wikipedia (15 or so years ago), it was reasonably common for editors to create an article in place, and to add "under construction" graphics to let readers know that wasn't quite ready for prime time. That practice is largely discouraged today. While it is still true the many new articles start out small and grow organically over time, it is no longer considered acceptable to have an article in main space that isn't ready for readers. While this general change in practice occur quite a few years ago, the existence of draft space made it much easier to distinguish between articles that are ready for general viewing, and articles that are still in the early stages of development. However, even when it was acceptable practice to have an unfinished article in main space, it has never been acceptable to have copyright problems in any version, even in draft space. I have observed hundreds of editors who seem to think that it's okay to drop copyrighted or closely paraphrased text into an article as long as they clean it up in short order, but this is not the case. Some of them are unaware that all prior versions of articles are accessible, and we cannot have copyright problems in any version of any article. My revert had nothing to do with the fact that this article wasn't in polished shape, It was because your edit included material that was too close to a source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Always preciousEdit

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathonsEdit

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


hello :) for your recent review on the Ireneus, from here I got the text https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org › ...PDF Midwife of the Christian Bible

but you passed on the following link: https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-80/why-reformers-read-fathers.html?id=7830&number=6&type=issueNext

I don't know if in that case the revision is maintained, but I just inform you this, in case there is a solution, thank you. Tuxzos22 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


Hi, could use more assistance from you and Diannaa on persistent promotional and copyright issues. Thanks for helping thus far. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in RedEdit

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Books & Bytes – Issue 49Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

  • New library collections
  • Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


Hi, SP - can you advise as to how we go about moving a CC-By-SA 4.0 from en.WP to Commons (see Ticket #2022032910002245)? Atsme 💬 📧 13:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm semiretired and packing for trip to the final four. I plan to to reassess my Wikipedia involvement when I get back, hopefully for the positive. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Understood - just attended the Big 12 Conference - Equestrian - and OSU won the Championship (my granddaughter is an OSU Equestrian, and is there on a scholarship). Good luck to whatever team you're rooting for!! Atsme 💬 📧 18:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that's great! S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert Rubin?Edit

Hi S Philbrick, I'm not sure if you're still on hiatus, but I thought I would say hello in any case. It's been a a little over a year since you last reviewed new material for the Robert Rubin article, but I'm still working with his team, and I wonder if you'd be willing to look at my latest suggested update? It think it's more straightforward than the derivatives topic we had discussed before, although I wouldn't say it's uncomplicated. I'd appreciate it if you can, but no worries if not. Hope all is well with you. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I am partially returning from hiatus but at the moment I'm concentrating on Copyright Patrol plus a few selected article updates. However, I am going to be out of the country for couple weeks starting soon, and up to my eyeballs in preparation so can we chat again third week of May or so?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirementEdit

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Replied to you on my talk pageEdit

Check that out please. Thanks. I still don't understand why I was reverted. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Replied again. Leaving this message just in case you don't get pings. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 at Women in RedEdit

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230

Online events:

See also:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright materialEdit

Greetings Sphilbrick, Makov Borislav is persistently adding WP:COPYVIO material to Fédération Internationale de Sambo. I noticed you reverted them once already, however, the disruptions continue. I submitted an WP:AIV, but nothing is being done. Wondering if you can have a look/assist in protecting the article from further copyright violations. Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The user who returned the text meant it. There was no editorial conflict. And the user did not edit here at all. You also delete it regardless of my text and edits. The copyrighted text was as follows: I deleted it. Please do not delete my content again. The rest of the content is not a copy at all. Also pay attention to the volume and bytes of that user's content. I deleted the copyright text. Pay attention to the following link. The rest of the content is not a copy.





No text has been copied or pasted.

I took the time to complete the article. All copyrighted material has been removed.

After your remark, I deleted all the copyrighted content more than ten times in the edits and explained it in the discussion page, and gave the link. Instead of accepting, he is arguing with me

Please template copyright violators.Edit

What is the point of reverting copyright violations and simply welcoming users? Please in the future can you inform them that what they did was wrong in some fashion? Preferably in the form of a template eg. {{uw-copyright-new}} on their talk page. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

While I can not see this edit, the source apparently violated releases their text under CC-BY 4.0 license. Likely a revision deletion is not required, just attribution and linking to license. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you clarify by what you meant in the edit summary "Copyright issue re revenski@att.net" in this edit? Where is the copyrighted material located? Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The copyrighted material can be found here--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, the source licenses material under CC-BY 4.0 license. Just linking to license is required. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, you state that content has been removed that infringes upon https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/cold-reception-rise-of-antiislamic-sentiments-in-iceland/, though at the bottom of the article it displays its CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Likely requiring just attribution and linking to license. Not revdel. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, the source licenses material under CC-BY 4.0 license. Just linking to license is required. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Pabsoluterince, CC BY-NC 4.0 is not a compatible licence in this project, revdeletion was appropriate. The nonsense at Nonverbal communication was copied from here or some similar source. You may have a point about the State Library of Queensland thing. Hi, Sphilbrick, hope you're well! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Justlettersandnumbers. I've struck that one. I think part of the problem is the pace at which Sphilbrick reviews on copypatrol. Today Sphilbrick reviewed 5 cases[1][2][3][4][5] in two minutes including one that required action to fix, but failed to template the user. Likewise today this edit required revdel but didn't warrant a template or discussion about copyright with the user. Later that same user simply readded the content, before I reverted it. Sphilbrick has reviewed 25,421 cases, which at their estimated 1-2% error rate makes for 254-508 cases. The scale of editing does not excuse the scale of mistakes. However this likely estimates mistakes in pages Sphilbrick actioned to fix, as cases are not re-reviewed in copypatrol. Mistakes would likely only be brought up for incorrect actions, rather than incorrect inactions. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Curiously, when I was addressing some issues yesterday, I handled several in a row quickly, and casually wondered whether anyone would notice the short length of time between edits. I dismissed that thought, but I was clearly wrong. I have noticed on several occasions someone bringing a complaint to AN or ANI which involved an editor working too fast. In most cases, while the majority of the edits were fine there were a significant number of errors. Even a 10% error rate is too large, because of the burden places on others, so I take your suggestion seriously but I don't think it applies.

I am in general agreement that when regarding a copyright violation, it is important to notify the editor so they know what happened. It is my intention to always provide information in the edit summary which should be sufficient, albeit brief, to explain the situation, although you did run across a glitch whether did not happen as I intended. In addition to an edit summary, I often leave a specific message on the editor's talk page.

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 (Hundreds more examples upon request)

There are some cases where I do not leave a notification on a talk page.

I know there's an essay Wikipedia:IP editors are human too

I have years of experience with copyright issues. In the early years, I left messages on the talk pages of registered editors as well as IP's. It was my observation that three or 4% of the cases were I left notification on a registered editors page they would respond often with an objection. I was correct more often than not, but on occasion, they made good points and I quickly fixed my error. However, despite leaving messages on the talk pages of hundreds of IP addresses, I do not recall a single instance where an IP editor entered into a discussion. I'm happy to create a message for hundred registered editors even though only three or four may respond, but it's my assessment that leaving a message specifically relating to copyright issues for IP editors who never respond is a waste of time. (I do think leaving a courtesy note on IP editors talk pages when they engage in vandalism is worthwhile.)

I will respond to those five edits you identified later but I have some things I have to do right now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the edits close together in time: First This edit constructed a table. The text entries were all short and in quotes, so it only took a few seconds to realize there were no problems. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Second This edit involves the addition of Lorem ipsum text. Not surprisingly that it registers in Copy Patrol, but clearly not a copyright issue. The edit was reverted but not by me. I did mark the issue as fixed, and arguably should've marked it as "no action needed". I vaguely thought about whether it was important to make that distinction and decided there wasn't. I didn't notify the editor as I made no reversions – I note that the editor who did the reversion did leave a notification. It takes less than 10 seconds to identify Lorem ipsum text, especially if you've seen it hundreds of times. Third This edit adds a list. While list can sometimes raise tricky copyright questions this one does not. In my opinion it only takes five seconds to identify this as a nonproblem. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Fourth This edit added seven extremely short sentences. I didn't even check the purported source which appears to be a porn site (assuming nudexxxx.com isn't a religious history site). While one might argue that if it is a simple copy and paste, and should be rewritten, I made the assessment that the passage was too short to create a likely problem. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Fifth This edit is primarily an info box with a couple of extremely short sentences. The info box, which doesn't contained any extended text is obviously not a problem. The other short sentences seem too short to be worth pursuing. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem.

While I could imagine another editor taking a more aggressive view on the last two, if they could find a source with that exact text, I'm comfortable that my assessment was acceptable. Frankly, I can't see anyone of these five taking more than 30 seconds to investigate so two minutes for the five of them sounds about right. None of them required notification to the editor, as there was literally nothing to say in for the five cases and in the fifth the editor who reverted the information had provided notification.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would suggest using templates to engage editors with copyright issues. This removes the time sink of writing a custom message to each editor and can be done easily through Twinkle. Templating users has several benefits, one is advising them what they did was wrong so they can learn from their mistake. The other is making the problem obvious to other users that may interact with them later. Leaving a notice on their talk page is also much more effective than the edit summary you're leaving. Generally copyright violators are new users who won't be able to learn much from "copyvio" or "Copyright issue", even if they want to understand. By leaving a massive template linking to basically all policies that they need to know, you can stop good faith copyright violatons. For bad faith/regular violators, you start the process of removing them from Wikipedia or more active interventions. If you don't template bad faith/regular violators, they will likely violate again before being templated, after which we can determine that they are unlikely to change. It's not all about whether they engage with the talk page message, it's also about flagging problem editors helpful for future interventions.
I never look at past copypatrol cases, I don't think anyone does. Though, when seeing several problematic copyright actions from you and your #2 leader board position I thought that you might be working too quickly. In the fourth of five, the editor copied and pasted the text within Wikipedia, and did not provide an adequate edit summary. Not a large problem but should prompt a template to ensure that they understand correct proceedures for copying within Wikipedia. Some futher investigation and you'd discover that they editor has had >5 previous copyright warnings for images uploaded and 3 for text related copyright issues, including one already for copying within Wikipedia. This user likely needs a more active intervention, maybe a final warning in relation to copyright or addressing on a noticeboard (I did not have to search through all their contributions to get an idea of the scale of copyright violations, just a review of their talk page notices).
The other problem is your disclaimer addressing a source of mistakes "Source page which has a full copyright notice at the bottom of the page but material within the page is properly licensed. Sometimes that license is buried in the page and sometimes on a separate page." To look for a websites terms and conditions is a necessary step. I was able to find three instances where it appears you did not go through with that step.
I respect the years of work that you have worked to fix copyright issues and are a much greater net positive to the project than I am. I just want to point out some areas that may help in the future. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
In a different vein, is there a reason you deleted this revision, without deleting any of the edit? If so, it is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a reason. I'll be happy to share it with an admin of your choosing, but not you. I don't think you appreciate how infurating your condescending response comes across. It is best that I do not respond in anger - maybe tomorrow, maybe never. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I was able to find three instances where it appears you did not go through with that step. Accusations without diffs are exceedingly rude. Please identify. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I was refering to the cases that I brought up initially, 1 2 3. I am sorry for dropping this all here. I don't mean to be condescending, but with the obvious admin/non-admin, new user/veteran user dynamic, and me feeling that you've made some errors, that feels somewhat inevitable. I don't need any response! I just want to bring this to your attention for the future, because I think it would help collaborators. I think you've been exceptionally civil and calm considering, so thank you! If you think I could improve my communication in the future I'd be open for suggestions. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in RedEdit

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Books & Bytes – Issue 50Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mind Over Four edit deletedEdit

Why were my edits removed? I updated the information about a band that I co-founded. I wanted a hyperlink for Micheal Fordays, and to correct the spelling,(it is not MichAEl, rather MichEAl) and to correct and update the fact that my solo work is not past tense but in a current mode. (…released solo work, rather releases solo work.) the info currently is incorrect.

Also I added the references to the Jeff Wagner book and Podcast because these are important references for fans of Mind Over Four. These were cut and paste and I understand if that violates policy, but that doesn’t explain why the other corrections, mentioned above, were deleted.

None of my updates were fraudulent or negative in anyway. Why would they be removed? Do I not have a say about how my past projects or creative endeavors are portrayed?

Do I not have any recourse to make corrections on discrepancies I have described that feature my name and a project I helped to define? No place for my name and projects to be highlighted or enhanced to hyperlink, or even spelled correctly? Is this page, using my name and the name of the band I co-founded a format to promote Humble Gods, Mindfunk, Corporate Avenger and, Pat Dubar? Does the original author of this Wikipedia page the person that determines these issues? 

How can these issues be approached and resolved?

Thank you, Michealfordays@ @gmail.com Micheal Fordays (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion, don't delete draftsEdit

There is an ongoing discussion how to split One man, one vote and One person, one vote, see here: Talk:One man, one vote#Splitting proposal between One man, one vote and One person, one vote. Please don't delete Draft:One person, one vote or Draft:One man, one vote since I use it in that discussion. HudecEmil (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that was done properly, but I'll let it go. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022Edit

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235

Online events:

See also:

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging