![]() ![]()
| |
---|---|
Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons ![]() |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
On 5 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gertrude Kelly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Irish immigrant, anarchist, strike organiser, and New York surgeon Gertrude Kelly is commemorated by a children's park in Chelsea, Manhattan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gertrude Kelly. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
My Gertrude Kelly DYK was visible on the 6th of Jan which is Women's Christmas AND it surpassed 5,000 views on the day. I am delighted by both these things. Either would be a cause enough for joy. ☕ Antiqueight haver 21:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The fabulous books I got as prizes from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/WLM Ireland 2016 Writing Contest
As well as a cool Wiki book bag, pen and magnet.
Wonderful prizes. ☕ Antiqueight haver 18:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Janet O'Sullivan.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you deprecated (log) a revision (diff) I made at KT Tunstall. First things first: a deprecation is not a revert. Unapproving an edit only pushes it back in the pending queue; editors are not notified when their changes are deprecated; and your fellow reviewers are highly unlikely to see your review notes—in practice, a deprecation only serves to hide changes until another reviewer approves them.
Now, as to the substance, did you read my edit summary? NOTBROKEN ("Do not 'fix' links to redirects that are not broken") is a guideline—something you are expected to follow in mine run cases, see GUIDES—and it explicitly rejects your idea about piped links. As it explains, linking to a redirect instead of piping facilitates usage tracking, eases maintenance, and simplifies editing markup. If you disagree with this conclusion, you should open a discussion to change the guideline. Thank you. Rebbing 21:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah - that put me off editing for a while. ☕ Antiqueight haver 01:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
| |
---|---|
Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons ![]() |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
hey, saw the 'citaton needed' claim in the article where it says that web access is also a topic in rehab engineering. heres a book you can use for citation or just list as a reference!
mfg, toffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:4000:7380:D10E:A045:B78A:F3FF (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
![]() | |
historic portraits of women | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1352 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Welcome to Women in Red's |
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Welcome to Women in Red's |
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I received a messge that someone has, supposedly, altered an article I am unfamiliar with from my IP address.
Since my computer has only been out of my possession for a repair, since I DO NOT save my passwords on it and since, under normal circumstances, I am the ONLY user with access to my computer, EITHER the repairman abused his trust or someone has COUNTERFITED my IP address.
Please specify dates of this infraction, so that I can pinpoint which possiblity it is. Cheers, Shir-El too 20:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons. |
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons. |
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
|rowspan="2" | ![]() A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons. |
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
|rowspan="2" | ![]() WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC) |
|rowspan="2" | ![]() Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons. |
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thank you for your message about Mary Stanley. My reasoning was that, if the wives of peers are not categorised in the same stub categories as their husbands, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_nobility_stubs would have to contain 25 different sorts of wives - i.e. duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, viscountesses and baronesses in the peerages of Engalnd, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the UK. While there are 25 separate categories for their husbands. As stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Why_is_stub_sorting_important.3F "stub categories attract experts in specific areas (chemists can see chemistry stubs for example)". I suggest that Mary Stanley is more likely to receive attention from an expert if she is in the same category as her husband, than if she is in Category:British_nobility_stubs. I agree that the logical consequence of my suggestions is that each of the 25 peer categories should be amended so that it refers also to peeresses - eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Peerage_of_England_duke_stubs would read "This category is for stub articles relating to dukes *and duchesses* of the Peerage of England. May I seek your opinion on where would be the most appropriate place to propose this? Alekksandr (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
Views/Day! scope="col" | Quality! scope="col" | Title! scope="col" | Tagged with… |
---|
15| ![]() |
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Hello, Antiqueight. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of fictional characters with disabilities".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the ((db-afc))
, ((db-draft))
, or ((db-g13))
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I noodled up a version of your article that's in table form so it can be sorted (by work, by medium, by refs existing, etc etc). It's sitting at User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox 3 - thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh and Premeditated Chaos the note worked so well. I might well have been piqued at such an overhaul but it is such a good idea. I try not to 'own' pages but I'm only human ;-) ☕ Antiqueight haver 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
Views/Day! scope="col" | Quality! scope="col" | Title! scope="col" | Tagged with… |
---|
115| ![]() |
2| ![]() |
42| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
1,235| ![]() |
859| ![]() |
130| ![]() |
4| ![]() |
44| ![]() |
114| ![]() |
4,202| ![]() |
3,918| ![]() |
118| ![]() |
74| ![]() |
581| ![]() |
33| ![]() |
935| ![]() |
82| ![]() |
15| ![]() |
220| ![]() |
149| ![]() |
50| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
6| ![]() |
2| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
82| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
15| ![]() |
6| ![]() |
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
--Muzammil (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Antiqueight. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
You asked for my opinion. This is not policy. This is my own idealistic view of living with Wikipedia. There are 25m + articles and 5m + of them are in English. A proportion of these have errors. A very small percentage have errors that I could spot. One of the errors in one article is due to an editor who thinks that they must be right and they are willing to play games to keep their opinion as the correct way in that article. Luckily Wikipedia has procedures that over months that will control editors who cannot agree, but I will need to invest a lot of time to get that help. Where should I place the majority of my efforts? I think that the "small percentage [with] errors that I [can] spot" times 5 million is a lot of (very productive) work. The one article that has a problematic editor can takes it turn? Victuallers (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm terribly sorry for the delay in responding to your email, but sometimes things get lost on the functionaries list. :-/
I see you're able to edit normally now, but I've granted you an IPBE so this doesn't happen again. The range from which you were editing has a very active sockmaster that uses that network from time to time and I can't change that block, but I can fix it so it doesn't affect you.
If there's anything else I can do, you can contact us again or email me, and I'll do what I can. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize again. Katietalk 12:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
Views/Day! scope="col" | Quality! scope="col" | Title! scope="col" | Tagged with… |
---|
12| ![]() |
12| ![]() |
19| ![]() |
121| ![]() |
4| ![]() |
1,998| ![]() |
79| ![]() |
4| ![]() |
228| ![]() |
4| ![]() |
10| ![]() |
389| ![]() |
125| ![]() |
17| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
64| ![]() |
27| ![]() |
92| ![]() |
72| ![]() |
16| ![]() |
130| ![]() |
2| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
6| ![]() |
3| ![]() |
9| ![]() |
26| ![]() |
31| ![]() |
205| ![]() |
23| ![]() |
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I added information from The BMJ to the article Man flu, which was immediately catergorized a 'spoof' by another user. To clarify the issue I contacted The BMJ directly and received an email confirmation that the article in question was for real and based on current, published research.
I took the item seriously because of recent reports of medical and pharmaceutical information being seriously biased due to single-gender studies and testing - most often to the detriment of women. Now a bot has demanded a sitation for my revision and I don't know how to deal with it.
Any suggestions? Cheers! and SEASON'S GREETINGS!!! Shir-El too 06:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi -- I'm terribly sorry for the delay in responding to your email, but sometimes things get lost on the functionaries list. :-/
I see you're able to edit normally now, but I've granted you an IPBE so this doesn't happen again. The range from which you were editing has a very active sockmaster that uses that network from time to time and I can't change that block, but I can fix it so it doesn't affect you.
If there's anything else I can do, you can contact us again or email me, and I'll do what I can. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize again. Katietalk 12:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I added information from The BMJ to the article Man flu, which was immediately catergorized a 'spoof' by another user. To clarify the issue I contacted The BMJ directly and received an email confirmation that the article in question was for real and based on current, published research.
I took the item seriously because of recent reports of medical and pharmaceutical information being seriously biased due to single-gender studies and testing - most often to the detriment of women. Now a bot has demanded a sitation for my revision and I don't know how to deal with it.
Any suggestions? Cheers! and SEASON'S GREETINGS!!! Shir-El too 06:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging