Women in Red World ContestEdit

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Bradford ShellhammerEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Bradford Shellhammer has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

April editathons at Women in RedEdit

ITN recognition for Hevrin KhalafEdit

 On 16 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hevrin Khalaf, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in RedEdit

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143


Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Hello TJMSmith,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 718 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hevrin KhalafEdit

 On 19 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hevrin Khalaf, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kurdish civil engineer and politician Hevrin Khalaf, who worked for tolerance among Christians, Arabs, and Kurds, was killed in the 2019 Turkish offensive into Syria? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hevrin Khalaf. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hevrin Khalaf), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I put her on my talk today: Hevrin Khalaf - protest pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved message from your userpageEdit

HI TJMSmith! Thank you for the encouragement on the Trans Lifeline page! It put a smile on my face. =) I think we share a lot of similar goals on Wikipedia. It's great to know there are like-minded folks on here. =) Also, apologies for the edit here; I didn't know how to find your talk page. Anyway, keep rockin' and see ya around. Warmly, Caterpillar84

@Caterpillar84: Hello! Thanks for your valuable LGBTQ+ related contributions; I've enjoyed reading your articles. Keep it up! TJMSmith (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! And I will. Sincerely,--Caterpillar84 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIREdit

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Shelby StarnerEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Shelby Starner has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with your GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Constance KiesEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Constance Kies has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Sara BraunEdit

 On 14 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sara Braun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that along with her business partners, philanthropist Sara Braun (pictured), one of the first businesswomen in Punta Arenas, Chile, was involved in the genocide of the Selk'nam people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sara Braun. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sara Braun), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019Edit

 

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary L. Gray has been acceptedEdit

Mary L. Gray, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Transformative Studies InstituteEdit

Thanks for taking a look at the merge of Transformative Studies Institute into John Asimakopoulos! I did have one part that I'm considering reverting, and that I wanted to check in with you on: WP:MOSBOLD suggests bolding the first occurrence of a term that redirects to a subsection of an article, particularly when it is a substantial part of the article. So it seems to me that bolding the first occurrence of "Transformative Studies Institute" in the subsection is indicated. What do you think?

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking a look through. I found it hard to cut down the sea of words in the old article to a short NPOV description. A 2nd set of eyes is good. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Interesting! I've never seen MOS:BOLDREDIRECT before nor have I come across many articles that seem to use it. You're more familiar with the contents of the TSI article than I am, so I'm fine what you think is best in this case. TJMSmith (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John AltobelliEdit

 On 27 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Altobelli, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hunter BidenEdit

This article is under page sanctions, per wp:DS as explained on the article talk page. You did not get consensus on talk before you reinserted content of yours I recently deleted as being UNDUE *and* poorly sourced. It's still UNDUE and you did not get talk page consensus in violation of DS. Please undo your reinsertion and provide your rationale on talk as to why you believe this detail is noteworthy encyclopedic content for this biography. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Done. I put the sources on the talk page. Not sure I agree with your assertion that it is undue. TJMSmith (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Thing is, there's just about nothing notable about Hunter Biden except that he was used by conspiracy theorists to tell tall tales, right? If it were Billy Graham, we might thing every such detail was noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in RedEdit

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ITN recognition for Homero Gómez GonzálezEdit

 On 31 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Homero Gómez González, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Goucher CollegeEdit

Just a heads up, Goucher College just made good article status. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Great job! If you're interested, you can now nominate the article for WP:DYK; it's eligible for 7 days after attaining GA status. TJMSmith (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020Edit

Hello TJMSmith,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constance KiesEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constance Kies you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 at Women in RedEdit

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Katherine JohnsonEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Katherine Johnson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Katherine JohnsonEdit

The article Katherine Johnson you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Katherine Johnson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Katherine JohnsonEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Katherine Johnson has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Raymond W. BlissEdit

If you got time, could you look over this article I created. He was a Surgeon General that opened the Army's first radioactive isotope laboratory. I am upgrading for GAN. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Kee Mar CollegeEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Kee Mar College has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You'll notice I have marked two sentences for clarification. This ends the 19th Century section: "The college seal was a reproduction of an intaglio found in Pompeii. The original intaglio has been in the British Museum, belonged to the king of Saxony, and was in the position of principal Margaret Barry."

Should this read: The college seal was a reproduction in the possession of principal Margaret Barry of an intaglio found in Pompeii. The original intaglio in the British museum had belonged to the king of Saxony. (?)

In the Academics section: "A large collection of similar reproductions of drawings, namely by Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael were in position by the college." It's not crystal clear in the sentence that precedes this, but Im guessing the students studied the art to understand the techniques used or perhaps copied them? In any case, I assume "position" in this case should read "possession".

Once these are clarified, the tags should be removed.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassandra Manuelito-KerkvlietEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Cassandra Manuelito-Kerkvliet has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Mindie BurgoyneEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Mindie Burgoyne has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You'll see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Mindie_Burgoyne a GOCE editor had some concerns about the subject's notability which have been addressed. They removed some text from the article which is either trivial or reads like a travel guide/advertisement. This text and its citations have been preserved on the article's Talk Page.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roberto StellaEdit

 

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 Roberto Stella requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — kashmīrī TALK 11:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constance KiesEdit

The article Constance Kies you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Constance Kies for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! TJMSmith (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Rafael Rodríguez MercadoEdit

TJMSmith, when I agreed with your addition of the 3 "American-" categories for the Puerto Rican neuro-surgeon named above, it was based --as I stated immediately after reverting my own edit here and which revert provisonally returned the article to the version of your preference-- it was based on the fact that an equivalent "Puerto Rican neurosurgeons" category hadn't been created yet. It was a provisional measure and had noting to do with the subject of citizenship, an argument of yours for your basis to add the 3 "Americans-" category to that Puerto Rican doctor. My reversal was intended as a temporary solution until that time when the category "Puerto Rican neurosurgeons" (and a few other similar medical subspecialties missing their own PR categories) was created. However, today I see that soon after my reversal to the version of your preference, you started categorizing as Americans additional Puerto Ricans here, here, here, and here (among others) but which, unlike the missing "Puerto Rican neuro-surgeons" category, were occupations which already did have their own Puerto Rico-specific categories.

It is misleading to categorize Puerto Ricans as Americans. Why are you having difficulty understanding that Puerto Rico is a separate entity from the United States? By simple reasoning, Puerto Ricans are also a separate entity from Americans. What's so difficult to undertsnad about that? Is Puerto Rico part of the US? It isn't. And Puerto Ricans may be American citizens, as you argued (they are also Puerto Rican citizens, btw), but that attribute in and of itself doesn't automatically imply they are Americans; they maybe American citizens but they aren't Americans. Americans are those people born in the USA, that is, in one of the 50 States, the D.C., or the Palmyra Atoll. I have undone your changes. Since the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you, the editor adding the "Americans" information, you are not allowed to reverse these edits until you have shown that your edits are indeed the ones that should prevail. I will try to make no assumptions here, and will continue to assume good faith, but your seeking out for other Puerto Rican occupations (musicians, artists, etc.) to also make apply analogous changes to, when those occupations were already categorized under their corresponding Puerto Rican categories, was an action that went beyound that of the Puerto Ricans in the narrow area of Puerto Rican neurosurgeons that we discussed. I thought that was perfectly clear to you back then. Did you fail to notice that? Mercy11 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy11: Hello, I think we may be talking past each other. I didn't remove the Puerto Rican categories, I added them as a subcategory to their respective U.S. parent cat. I understand that Puerto Rico is its own entity and that it is also an Unincorporated territories of the United States. For this reason, there are Puerto Rican categories which distinguish individuals from other Americans. How can you say someone from a U.S. Territory is an American citizen but not American? That seems blatantly false and contrary to the law. Even people from American Samoa, who are not U.S. citizens by birth, are U.S. nationals. Puerto Ricans (and people from other territories like Guam and USVI) are just as American as any citizen from a U.S. State. Being Puerto Rican and American are not mutually exclusive terms. Many Puerto Rican categories were already subcategorized in the parent (umbrella) American ones (see here: [1]). Do you think it is misleading to subcategorize Puerto Rican categories in U.S. categories? It still has Puerto Ricans as a separate entity that is also included with the rest of Americans. TJMSmith (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Being an American and being an American citizen are two different things. As an example: being a Nobel Prize winner makes you a winner (of the NP), it doesn't make you a Nobel Prize; similarly, being an American citizen makes you a citizen of America, it doesn't make you an American. It's a fairly straight-forward concept. They two attributes are two different things. This perhaps explains, to a point, why there are 2 WP articles for each of the two distinct concepts. As an example, a person born in Puerto Rico but to an American father and an American mother (to make the parents blatantly clear, let's say they are both of the tall, blue-eyed, fair skin, and straight, blonde hair types) clearly is an American, Not a Puerto Rican. Being American does imply possessing American citizenship, but possessing American citizenship doesn't automatically imply being American. Every day in the US, you hear US mainland-born Americans ask someone (who is clearly not American, based on their accent, the bodega where they buy their groceries, the TV stations they listen to, their language and, in general, their habits, customs and traditions), where are you from? If they are Puerto Ricans, they will say "I am from Puerto Rico", and if they are Panamanians, they will say "I am from Panama", even if the first was born in PR, and the second one was naturalized in the US. No one in would expect either one of such two people to say "I am from here, the United States". For example, Albert Einstein was German, then he became an American citizen. He didn't become American, he became an American citizen. You become American by being born in the US (which also makes you a US citizen), whereas you become a US citizen by either being born in the United States or being naturalized into the US. The law can't make you American, it can only make you an American citizen.
Yes, of course, it is misleading to subcategorize Puerto Rican categories under U.S. categories. This has been discussed several times throughout WP. You can see one example the alludes to that here. Being a US national and a US citizen aren't the same thing either. Just like the believe that having American citizenship makes you an American (which it doesn't, it only makes you an American citizen), nationality and citizenship aren't the same thing either and many people use the two interchangeably when they aren't supposed to. A lot of students in US schools are taught Puerto Ricans are US citizens and that, therefore, they are Americans. Some learn it and others don't, as it's always the case with teaching and learning. But no, that is not true; the 3.2 million people in Puerto Rico are Puerto Ricans and American citizens, but they aren't Americans, they are Puerto Ricans. This all stems from the fact that PR belongs to America but isn't part of America. Can you say that you wallet is TJMSmith? No, you wallet belongs to you, but isn't part of you. On the other hand, your arm is you because it not only belongs to you but because it is a part of you. I hope we don't have to come back to this subject again. Mercy11 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 at Women in RedEdit

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:19th-century American women physiciansEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century American women physicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz Read! Talk! 14:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Leah Lowenstein at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Robert H. GarffEdit

 On 30 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert H. Garff, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)