User talk:T. Anthony/Archive 11

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Ipigott in topic Thank you for your support

Fighting the same crap edit

I noticed your involvement in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic computer science topics.

The project has undergone a name change since then and has grown substantially (see Portal:Contents/Outlines), but is subject to the same sort of potshots and ludicrous arguments as it was back in 2006.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines.

I thought you might find the parallels amusing. The Transhumanist 12:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have a dumb question edit

Hello, T. Anthony. I was looking at the list of Catholic Wikipedians because I was curious how many were sysops. But my question is: when I hover my pointer over a username, the box pops up, and at the bottom of the box (sometimes) it lists the user's "rights". Often, the first item in the list is an asterisk. What the heck does that asterisk mean? Thank you, and keep the Faith! --Kenatipo speak! 23:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Been wondering that myself. My guess is that * is the base class that you have if you don't have any other rights. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Poor Kenatipo doesn't even get a lousy asterisk because his userpage has been deleted! But, he likes seeing his name in red letters. Thanks, Sarek! (Now that's ambiguous!) --Kenatipo speak! 04:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Next completely random guess -- "*" only shows if you have something else explicitly set, like "autoreviewer". If you just have the default user rights, it doesn't show up. I just turned on your "confirmed" flag (just like autoconfirmed, only not auto), and it's showing up now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually haven't checked my user categories for awhile. I also don't seem to be getting what you're getting unless I misunderstand you. Still I'll leave this conversation up as there's apparently interest in it.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Sarek, for doing that for me. And thanks, TA, for letting us gab on your talk page. I think you can delete this now if you want to! --Kenatipo speak! 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh no problem.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi again edit

I noticed you are interested in the biography articles about jazz musicians. I often add infoboxes to articles that have photos, but in the case of Jim Blackley, because the lead mentions that he is a drum professor, maybe you will handle it? I know the majority of musician articles use the same basic infobox but there's a distiction made for teachers, Opera singers, etc. Thanks.

I should probably look into that. I'm not familiar with him, but sometime this week I might get to that if you don't. However if you want to do it feel free.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

More tales of long-term vandalism edit

In Frank R. Stockton: "He supported himself as an alleged hot dog eating champion until his father's death in 1860; he broke the world record by eating 2.5 hot dogs and buns in 60 seconds." This lasted off/on for about three years. It was off/on because a copy-vio version of the article, that did not have it, had to be reverted. Anyway I'm pretty certain it's vandalism as it was started by an anonymous user who edited once, no biography I find mentions it, and judging by the article hot dog the term "hot dog" didn't even exist until the 1880s.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Loving your work edit

I saw your edits to List_of_disability_rights_activists - you my friend, are awesome - I've removed the prod and will get a bit of work done on the article once my workload dies down a bit. Thank you! Failedwizard (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I sometimes look at what's prodded/proposed-deleted to see if anything is worth salvaging. Sometimes there is.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

My red-lists edit

I hope no one minds, but I'm think I might cut some of them down a bit. I'm worried some contain non-notable entries and such.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo edit

The above category (Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo), which you created in 2007, has been proposed for deletion. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I was doing a spate of those as it seemed to be "a thing", but I'm not invested in it. If it has merit good, if not also okay. Still thanks for telling me.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a list of notable persons who formerly identified as either atheists or agnostics, but then developed belief in a deity or deities. In some countries the percentage of those professing "no belief" is growing.[1] A 2008 Pew Forum study reported that 3.9% of Americans were raised without religion, but later affiliated with a religious group. The same study reported that 12.7% of Americans were unaffiliated despite being raised in a particular faith.[2]


Women edit

Although winding down the lack of women in Wikipedia has been mentioned online so I thought I'd list some things of potential significance there.

First a link to my "User:T. Anthony/Women in Red", which contains a variety of women who have articles in non-English Wikipedia. Some of said articles are classed as "good articles" in their respective Wikis and a few are of women who had notable political power.

Here's some notable women with fairly short to very short articles.

Here's some women's magazines with high circulation but stubby or mediocre articles.

Finally here's a few films that are apparently more popular with women than men and could maybe be improved or expanded as articles.


You are now a Reviewer edit

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was so long for the year, now it's hello again! edit

Hello again.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol survey edit

 

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello T. Anthony! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What's up with interwiki links? edit

It looks like they're not working on most pages I check.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello edit

I just wanted to let you know, I've added all the List of former RELIGION articles I could find to the AfD of former atheists and agnostics. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks. Sorry if I was unfair to you.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sophie Mereau edit

Thanks for expanding this article. I planned to work on it today, but team work feels really nice.TrailerTrack (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, good luck with any expansion.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Created a new "red-link" list edit

Called User:T. Anthony/From Simple English. Basically stuff I find in Simple, but don't feel like doing here on my own. Either because it's models, don't care about that, or laziness. Some might not be notable enough. I may or may not keep it around. I haven't done a red-link list in nearly five years, it seems, so it's maybe a surprise.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great list ;) I'm working from the other side - simple:User:Osiris/work/interwikis#Could be translated. I've sent quite a few to be deleted, but the translation section I'm slowly working on. Osiris (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! It was something of an odd idea. Used to I'd just make articles myself that I saw from Simple, if they seemed notable, but then I became less involved in article creation. Thanks for the help, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply


A barnstar for you! edit

  The Original Barnstar
for industry! In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposals for lists edit

There are proposals regarding these lists:

And should be like past proposals for the 20th- and 21st-century lists. Please comment. tahc chat 05:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Irena Jurgielewiczowa edit

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Neat. More or Most credit goes to User:Piotrus, as I did nothing after starting it, but it looks like I had her on User:T. Anthony/Women in Red since December 2007. I find centenarians interesting, but knew little else of her. Glad I finally started her article though.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

FIS Bios edit

Hi when creating articles for skiers please follow an example like here [2]. Thanks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please don't forget to add the infobox thanks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Formatting Google Books references edit

Please use Template:Cite books rather than direct links; you can paste them to [3] and get a nicely formatted link in seconds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've been here for years and at times I feel I can't keep up with all the changes. Still I may do this in the future.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply


Women in Red question edit

Hi, you maintain a a list of noteworthy Women who have no English Language wntry: "Women in Red". I am preparing a translation from the Spanish Language page for Esther Ballestrino. NFW1877 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)NFW1877Reply

Thanks!--T. Anthony (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Soliciting comment... edit

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I may later, although Coleman is not one of the jazz musicians I've followed too much to be honest.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I couldn't think of anything to say. I worried I might not as that's an area of jazz I seem to connect less to.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Potentially neat new tool edit

I see there's a tool where I can look up more on articles I started. Like how many editors they've had and their popularity. The list articles look to be my most popular, but Marina Silva (which I started, but has mostly been by others) is newsworthy of late and gaining attention. I figured articles I started on TV shows might be popular, but the article on Christy (TV series) was more popular than I expected.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Return of the return of the return of whatever, red-linked names in the news edit

Some added exposure for things that had been on lists edit

These were some red-links that sounded potentially significant to me that I had on lists, but moved to add visibility. I guess I put many of these in the archive only and nowhere else.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edwin Hunt edit

Hello T. Anthony,
You may want to add some RS to Edwin Hunt. At the moment the article has no third party references, and the only external link included seems to be broken. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the warning. I was lucky to find he'd been in a news article just a few weeks ago. I had not known it, as I hadn't really checked the article for awhile, but I guess he was a notable lawyer in addition to checkers. In fact I found more specifics on him as a lawyer in the sources than I did on the checkers stuff. So I altered it to go with the sources with one exception. That being the sources I found didn't have his birth and death dates, but I chose not to remove those.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for adding the Information and the references.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

weMen in red edit

sure? Victuallers (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is Bartlett a woman? That page calls him a "he" and I put that in Miscellany.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Robert Lalonde edit

No worries. Even a short stub to start is still better than nothing at all — I likely wouldn't have gotten to him for months, if at all, if somebody hadn't started it, and there's still technically a lot more than could still be done to improve it than I did last night. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okey-dokey. I actually know next to nothing about him, I had just put him on one of my lists because he won an award or something.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Suggest this is best as as wiktionary entry.

Nomination of Theonym for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theonym 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/Article title 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..

μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I made that a long time ago because I saw it on a list or something. I think I'd be fine with it going on Wiktionary or something.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red edit

Its WHM soon - see my page. How can we best get your list involved? Victuallers (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know to be honest. I'm pleased it's gotten so much attention, more than most of my lists, but I think you might know better than me how to deal with WHM. Also if there's anything on it you think is too non-notable, or anything you think I should add, feel free to tell me. I sometimes just add things because I saw them on a list or whatever.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi "T", How To Pick Up More Women ... edit

My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. Your list will feature. If you do have some thoughts ... Victuallers (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neat. Not sure I have any thoughts at the moment, but may later.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Soliciting comment... edit

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I may later, although Coleman is not one of the jazz musicians I've followed too much to be honest.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I couldn't think of anything to say. I worried I might not as that's an area of jazz I seem to connect less to.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Potentially neat new tool edit

I see there's a tool where I can look up more on articles I started. Like how many editors they've had and their popularity. The list articles look to be my most popular, but Marina Silva (which I started, but has mostly been by others) is newsworthy of late and gaining attention. I figured articles I started on TV shows might be popular, but the article on Christy (TV series) was more popular than I expected.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Return of the return of the return of whatever, red-linked names in the news edit

Some added exposure for things that had been on lists edit

These were some red-links that sounded potentially significant to me that I had on lists, but moved to add visibility. I guess I put many of these in the archive only and nowhere else.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edwin Hunt edit

Hello T. Anthony,
You may want to add some RS to Edwin Hunt. At the moment the article has no third party references, and the only external link included seems to be broken. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the warning. I was lucky to find he'd been in a news article just a few weeks ago. I had not known it, as I hadn't really checked the article for awhile, but I guess he was a notable lawyer in addition to checkers. In fact I found more specifics on him as a lawyer in the sources than I did on the checkers stuff. So I altered it to go with the sources with one exception. That being the sources I found didn't have his birth and death dates, but I chose not to remove those.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for adding the Information and the references.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

weMen in red edit

sure? Victuallers (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is Bartlett a woman? That page calls him a "he" and I put that in Miscellany.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Robert Lalonde edit

No worries. Even a short stub to start is still better than nothing at all — I likely wouldn't have gotten to him for months, if at all, if somebody hadn't started it, and there's still technically a lot more than could still be done to improve it than I did last night. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okey-dokey. I actually know next to nothing about him, I had just put him on one of my lists because he won an award or something.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Suggest this is best as as wiktionary entry.

Nomination of Theonym for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theonym 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/Article title 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..

μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I made that a long time ago because I saw it on a list or something. I think I'd be fine with it going on Wiktionary or something.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red edit

Its WHM soon - see my page. How can we best get your list involved? Victuallers (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know to be honest. I'm pleased it's gotten so much attention, more than most of my lists, but I think you might know better than me how to deal with WHM. Also if there's anything on it you think is too non-notable, or anything you think I should add, feel free to tell me. I sometimes just add things because I saw them on a list or whatever.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi "T", How To Pick Up More Women ... edit

My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. Your list will feature. If you do have some thoughts ... Victuallers (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neat. Not sure I have any thoughts at the moment, but may later.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Women edit

I had this before, but bringing it back as there's renewed interest in women's coverage. It's me looking for some notable, or likely notable, women with fairly short or problematic articles.

Here's some women's magazines with high circulation but stubby or mediocre articles.

Finally here's three films that are apparently more popular with women than men and could maybe be improved or expanded as articles.

Editing stuff edit

Be careful as I'd advise you not to stalk me across article to revert my edits or I will make a formal complaint and call for an investigation. You moved from Wolf Hall to Agatha Barbara. That's no accident. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It close to is. I had intended to change the Agatha Barbara article after Lent, but decided against it at the time. I changed the Wolf Hall article due to things I'd read online. I'll admit seeing you there reminded me of it. However I'm not interested in your work as a whole and have had little dealings with you. I don't see your categorization on Agatha Barbara as justified. You disagree. You can take it up with someone if you wish.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
On reflection I decided to leave it as is, but RfC'd it. Maybe I had a point or maybe I was persnickety. Whatever, I'd like someone else to weigh in if possible.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Translation deal exists now edit

Maybe more of my list items will start turning blue. Although so far it seems to work best when translating from Spanish and you still have to whip things into shape.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Project edit

Now this is a belated piece of information. Last weekend I gave a talk with user:Rosiestep at Wikimania. We proposed a new user group and a project to address the content gender gap. I mentioned your list as a cool name and "in a rush" the project was renamed "Women in Red". So I hope you see this as a compliment. The project aims to spend a year making a difference. We need lists of "missing women" and we need editors who are interested in mitigating this problem. So a) Hope you don't mind but Wikiproject Women in Red has been formed... b) could we transclude your list to the project? c) Would you care to join us in the project and maybe continue to maintain the list? Victuallers (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wow. The name was slightly jokey and I worry could even sound sexist. But sure you could transclude my list. Although it's pretty much just things that are in Wikipedia, but not English version. Also a little odd as I think I might have had an issue with that user on something Catholic related. (I was confusing editors there, it was a different person on that issue) I'm a fairly conservative Catholic so kind of amusing if I'm aiding, I don't know feminism. I don't know how active I'll be but I'll look into it. --T. Anthony (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I link to User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list on my list and it's in many ways more thorough than I think mine is. I might add more links to my list now.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Checkers edit

Hi! Created subpage, where they are ordered by iws. Note, that there are dublicates - got 4 Wikipedia data. Maybe it will help. If needed I can make such lists further, just say some parameters/categories. Oh, and if you find that list useful, then probably tou could move it your own subpage. If not - then nevermind. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

And if you're interested in Brazilians... --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I might link to those here soon.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for participating edit

Y'all are welcome! I had avoided being involved in much for many years, but it was kind of fun.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture edit

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

 
  • Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in association with Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation, Women in Design, and Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in architecture and design to participate. The campaign aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that by its nature combines both. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in this field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for participating in Women in architecture edit

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science edit

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

 
 
  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

More up my alley than architecture, so hopefully I'll do a bit more. I might be getting ill though.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom elections are now open! edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom elections are now open! edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply


Women edit

I had this before, but bringing it back as there's renewed interest in women's coverage. It's me looking for some notable, or likely notable, women with fairly short or problematic articles.

Here's some women's magazines with high circulation but stubby or mediocre articles.

Finally here's three films that are apparently more popular with women than men and could maybe be improved or expanded as articles.

Editing stuff edit

Be careful as I'd advise you not to stalk me across article to revert my edits or I will make a formal complaint and call for an investigation. You moved from Wolf Hall to Agatha Barbara. That's no accident. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It close to is. I had intended to change the Agatha Barbara article after Lent, but decided against it at the time. I changed the Wolf Hall article due to things I'd read online. I'll admit seeing you there reminded me of it. However I'm not interested in your work as a whole and have had little dealings with you. I don't see your categorization on Agatha Barbara as justified. You disagree. You can take it up with someone if you wish.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
On reflection I decided to leave it as is, but RfC'd it. Maybe I had a point or maybe I was persnickety. Whatever, I'd like someone else to weigh in if possible.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Translation deal exists now edit

Maybe more of my list items will start turning blue. Although so far it seems to work best when translating from Spanish and you still have to whip things into shape.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Project edit

Now this is a belated piece of information. Last weekend I gave a talk with user:Rosiestep at Wikimania. We proposed a new user group and a project to address the content gender gap. I mentioned your list as a cool name and "in a rush" the project was renamed "Women in Red". So I hope you see this as a compliment. The project aims to spend a year making a difference. We need lists of "missing women" and we need editors who are interested in mitigating this problem. So a) Hope you don't mind but Wikiproject Women in Red has been formed... b) could we transclude your list to the project? c) Would you care to join us in the project and maybe continue to maintain the list? Victuallers (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wow. The name was slightly jokey and I worry could even sound sexist. But sure you could transclude my list. Although it's pretty much just things that are in Wikipedia, but not English version. Also a little odd as I think I might have had an issue with that user on something Catholic related. (I was confusing editors there, it was a different person on that issue) I'm a fairly conservative Catholic so kind of amusing if I'm aiding, I don't know feminism. I don't know how active I'll be but I'll look into it. --T. Anthony (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I link to User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list on my list and it's in many ways more thorough than I think mine is. I might add more links to my list now.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Checkers edit

Hi! Created subpage, where they are ordered by iws. Note, that there are dublicates - got 4 Wikipedia data. Maybe it will help. If needed I can make such lists further, just say some parameters/categories. Oh, and if you find that list useful, then probably tou could move it your own subpage. If not - then nevermind. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

And if you're interested in Brazilians... --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I might link to those here soon.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for participating edit

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music edit

Women in Music
 
 
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History edit

Invitation

Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

 

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I may do a little, but Lent is somewhat early this year so I'll have to cut out early.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support edit

Thank you for participating in the

Women in Music edit-a-thon

 
  • January 2016
  • More than 250 articles were created
  • Hosted by Women in Red

(... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Demographics of Atheism
  2. ^ U.S.Religious Landscape Survey (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2008. pp. 22–26. The unaffiliated group provides a good example of the high degree of religious movement that has taken place in the U.S. Overall, 3.9% of the adult population reports being raised without any particular religious affiliation but later affiliating with a religious group. However, more than three times as many people (12.7% of the adult population overall) were raised in a particular faith but have since become unaffiliated with any religious group.