User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 82

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

one more type of copyright violator

I found one person who had cut-and-pasted an entire article which had the source in it, then simply removed the source! He then did minimal rewriting, adding "sources" but never again mentioning his original source, nor ever crediting the actual source. When I found it, the editor accused me of somehow being responsible for tormenting him - though a huge number of violations by the same editor have also been found. What I found amusing is that the editor had earlier warned others about copyright rules, which means he knew what he was doing from the start. Type "G" for your list, I suppose. Now back to making sure the hurricane does not hit me :( Collect (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your example greatly out trumps mine, but it does remind me of an example I've seen more than once. An editor copied a long description of an organization, and pasted it with exactly one change — the name of the organization! I may have to expand my list, but I'll have to have a grouping, because well examples a through F are all copyright violations, they all were potential good faith violations. Both your example in my example cannot possibly be characterized as good faith. Stay safe.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And here's another one! Someone who was told (or claims they were told) by the copyright holder that they have permission to post here, and does so. Again, good faith but copyvio. Crow^Caw 16:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that. Related to F, but different enough to deserve mention. Commonly, some intern is told to update an organisation's page, and told they can use the content on the org's website. It sounds plausible to them.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem helpful...

Left you a question on OTRS. I assume there is no cross wiki notification going on there. TJW ^talk 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that OTRS is outside the Wikimedia universe, so notifications don't work.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I may be wrong, the OTRS wiki does seem to be part of Wikimedia but I think your guess that I wouldn't automatically get notifications is correct. Not sure why. The OTRS system itself is outside of Wikimedia which is maybe what I was thinking of.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

However, I do see that I get an email notification of the message so you shouldn't have to crosspost.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it runs MediaWiki but it's not part of the unified login system, presumably to avoid any damage that could be done by a compromised account. Anyway, much appreciated. TJW ^talk 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your hard work. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 01:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Greensboro massacre

Hi Sphilbrick,

Saw your edit at the Greensboro massacre article, and I'm trying to understand the issue (so that I don't end up making the same mistake). It's hard to know what the other user did, since those edits aren't visible, but judging from your copyright comment it appears that he reproduced sections of an original article, rather than stating the information in his own words, and listing the source as his reference? Gulbenk (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: Yes, the editor copied and pasted sections of an article. The source had a terms of use section which seem to allow reuse with attribution but it specifically excluded commercial use. While of course, we are not a commercial enterprise, we do permit reuse of our material for commercial use so allowing the inclusion that material would have been problematic.

I can temporarily restore the visibility if you would like to see the material, but it was either a direct copy and paste or a very close paraphrase of the underlying material. It would be acceptable to source but it should've been written in the editor's own words.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. I hadn't considered the republication by a commercial site, so that answer was quite helpful. No need restore visibility, and again Thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sphilbrick - You deserve a beer! I want to thank you for your help in fixing my copyright problems. You were very kind through the whole process and very helpful. I've learned from my mistakes and I hope this will make me become a better contributor. Thanks again, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: List of countries with ice rinks and ice hockey and List of ice hockey countries

Hey, you were supposed to delete both pages! Why do you have to move the page to another page? AaronWikia (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@AaronWikia: There were two entries in the CSD list, I processed one, then the other. I wondered if it was set up right. What needs to be done?--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, it wasn't set up as a deletion, but as a move which required a deletion. I'll be happy to fix it, but I need to know what needs to be done.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted to Ice hockey by country as this is the title that was established by WP:RM. I'm not sure what you were doing there, Sphilbrick. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix: It appeared in the uncontroversial deletions requests because it was a requested move but required deletion of a redirect. Those are usually routine, but occasionally the requester mal-forms the request, and it results in a small mess requiring cleanup. This isn't the first time it has happened, but it will be the last time I'm involved in one, as I will pass on the next request. After I processed the first one, I noticed another one that seemed very similar and that raised a red flag and I wondered if there was something wrong. There was and I don't know how to reconstruct it so I'll stay away from them in the future. Thanks for the cleanup.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if you decide to move pages like that in the future, please check the talk page first. There has been a couple RMs in the past, and you moved it to a title that was rejected before. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on Thermal Conduction page edits

User Suman B R recently added content to the Thermal conduction page. It was deleted and the following reason was listed:

Reverted good faith edits by Suman B R (talk): Copyright issue re https://phys.org/news/2014-12-what-is-heat-conduction.html.

Could you elaborate a little further for me on what the copyright issue was? Is it possible to view the contribution?

Many thanks! Smojarad (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Smojarad: I have temporarily removed the revision deletion so that you can compare the edit to the source. We can discuss it further tomorrow--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Smojarad: --S Philbrick (Talk) 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for catching this. I see what the issue is and will follow up with him. Smojarad (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be more careful with speedy deletions

From molehill to mountain and now, at least temporarily, back to molehill. I request that this be left alone for 48 hours, and then, the next post, if necessary, should solely consist of an appropriate venue for further discussion

Reference:

Historical pages are not eligible for deletion, nor are pages that have previously survived a deletion discussion eligible for CSD. Nor is it good practice to create redlinks in Wikipedia space (see [1]). Reading is disrupted by the red links now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants.

Hasteur set you up by marking the page for CSD, but you are the administrator of record here. Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I disagree with your assessment. It was a page in draft space. Per G 13:

This applies to any pages in the draft namespace, as well as any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace, that have not been edited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months. ... (emphasis added)

If it isn't a valid deletion, I haven't yet figured out why, it's a page in draft space, and it has clearly gone more than six months without an edit. What do you think I am missing? If pages that have survived a deletion discussion previously are not eligible for CSD, then you need to ask for a modification of G 13 because I don't see that exception.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:, I think Sphilbrick is perfectly right here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, being found in draftspace is not a gotcha that trumps reason. That is absurd. Since a quoted response would include both most of the lede and the administrator's procedure of the WP:CSD policy, there is more text than would be practical to repost here. But even if we ignore WP:CSD, and the generally known good practice regarding red links, you also seem to be dismissing that historical pages should not be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have had some involvement with that article in the past and perhaps that has clouded your judgment. Regarding "historical", I didn't initially take it seriously because it sounds like you are throwing stuff at the wall hoping something would stick and that seem too silly to deserve a response. However, you've repeated it so presumably you don't think it was a mistake. When you say "historical" you could mean more than one thing. One option is the common use of the term in Wikipedia to refer to policies, guidelines and other material which was active at some time in history but is now largely deprecated. Of course, it is useful to keep track of this for historical purposes and we have a template dedicated to this purpose, i.e. {{historical}}. That template has somewhat over 22,000 transclusions, not a single one of which is in draft space. It is easy to imagine that a new guideline or policy in progress would start out in draft space, but if it never made it to Wikipedia space, and thus never was an active policy guideline or even essay, it is hard to imagine why we would want to mark it as historical. Maybe that will happen someday, but it hasn't happened yet and it didn't happen in this case, so if there is some written or even unwritten rule against deleting historical pages, it doesn't apply.

Alternatively, you might have meant "historical" in the usual English-language sense of something that has been around for a long time even if it didn't have the historical template attached. However, the deleted draft was created less than a year ago, which doesn't meet any reasonable definition of historical.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for my "involvement" with this article, how many edits did I make to the Project page, and how many did I make to the Talk page? If I was a major contributor, I would have received a speedy deletion notice, which I did not. Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What templates are currently on the Project page and what templates are currently on the Talk page? Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since it didn't appear that you had read the lede and the administrator's procedure of WP:CSD, I've posted them below, as well as a section entitled, "Pages that have survived deletion discussions". Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your argument regarding the reasonableness required to be historical seems novel, rather than being any theory I've ever heard of before. Is the one year something from Template:Historical? What templates are currently on the proposal? Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What consideration did you give to the requirement, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." Specifically, should the nominator have moved the page to Wikipedia space in order to preserve it? Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As per the procedures for administrators, did you read the deletion discussion? Do you support the requirement of CSD that pages that have survived deletion discussions can only be speedy deleted for non-controversial reasons? Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The procedure for administrators states, "What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia." Did you click on the What links here? What is your conclusion as to whether this is an "oft-referred part"? Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The following quotes are from WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, oldid=799334155:

Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.^[1]

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.

Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors.

^ In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.

Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all prior revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria.

=== Pages that have survived deletion discussions ===

When applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions:

G6, technical deletions
G8, pages dependent on nonexistent pages
G9, office actions
G12, unambiguous copyright violations
A2, foreign language articles on other Wikimedia projects
A5, transwikied pages
F8, images on Commons
U1, user requests deletion within their own userspace

These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. However, newly discovered copyright violations should be tagged for G12 if the violation existed in all previous revisions of the article.

== Procedure for administrators ==

Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. Also, in general the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified.

Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, or there was actually a cut-and-paste move involved. Also:

The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page.
The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page.
The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it on good reason.
What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be re-created, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Technicaly, Sphilbrick is absolutely correct. However, the draft is the subject of an RfC here. The error was by Eggishorn in creating the 'draft' in the wrong namespace. A 'draft' of this kind should have been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability draft - a sub page of that project. Perhaps the thing to do now might be to undelete it and move it there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move it there, but would like to hear @Eggishorn:'s views - does that work for you Eggishorn?--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the fault is not that I created it in the "wrong" space. That's an absurd piece of wikilawyering if I ever read it. There's no reason not to create drafts in draft space. It was widely advertised at the time, including through CD, so there was no shortage of views either through the project or through the wider community. I created it because the OP here, Unscintillating was being obstructive in AfD discussions and multiple editors felt that documenting a specific notability guideline was necessary. The proposal failed but the AfD drama also ceased. As I told Hasteur, there is simply no need for it anymore. I endorse Sphilbrick's action and if Unscintillating really feels that bothered by the red links, he can either delete them or create a new version. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. It is becoming increasing clear that there is a backstory, and I've somehow gotten sucked into it. I won't speak for Kudpung, who speaks for himself very well, but I don't think his goal was to ascribe blame, but to look for a solution. Had the original creation been in a subpage, we wouldn't be arguing about whether it should be deleted, but I agree with you Eggishorn, that there was no "need" to create it in a subpage. It was a draft of a guideline, and there's nothing wrong with creating drafts in draft space. If they are accepted, they will move into WP space, and if not, will go away. I am happy to see that Hasteur reached out to Eggishorn to make sure it didn't accidentally get swept away with the newish G13 rules for drafts, and I see that Eggishorn concurred that deletion was proper. If any of the involved parties wants to preserve a copy for posterity, I'd be happy to make it a user subpage of whomever wants it. Otherwise, let's wrap this up.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hey Eggishorn just calm down a bit, such attacks will make you unpopular. I'm trying as softly as possible to find a solution here. Nobody is discussing what your 'draft' was about, only what to do with it and we couldn't second guess your recent chat with Hasteur. The fact is you created a draft based on the word 'draft' in Draft namespace. I should know what the Draft namespace is for - I am one of the people who created it. If you would care to look around you, for years people have been creating such projects either in their own user space or as a Wikiproject sub page. Nobody is criticising you for it, just pointing out that it was not the best place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Lester Hutchinson

Sir, I am very sorry for copying from http://spartacus-educational.com/TUhutchinsonL.htm which may be a copyright violation. Thanks for correcting my mistakes. But I would like to ask you if, the information from two other books - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mScBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&dq=Hugh+Lester+Hutchinson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibuce9hL7WAhUGEpQKHXq5ANsQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Lester%20Hutchinson&f=false & https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Y3d9BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&dq=Hugh+Lester+Hutchinson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibuce9hL7WAhUGEpQKHXq5ANsQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Lester%20Hutchinson&f=false and another website - https://microform.digital/boa/collections/36/indian-communists-and-trade-unionists-on-trial-the-meerut-conspiracy-1929-1933/key-data can be given in the article. Also, the infobox had no information exclusively from http://spartacus-educational.com/TUhutchinsonL.htm. So, can it be reverted? Thanking you, Che12PM 14:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Che12Guevara:

Both books:

G., Lilleker, Darren (2004). Against the Cold War : the history and political traditions of pro-Sovietism in the British Labour Party 1945-89. London: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 9781850434719. OCLC 60715345.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
1933-, Haithcox, John Patrick,. Communism and nationalism in India : M.N. Roy and Comintern policy, 1920-1939. Columbia University. Research Institute on Communist Affairs. Princeton, New Jersey. ISBN 9780691620695. OCLC 905863861. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

are almost certainly subject to full copyright, can probably be used as a reference, and short excerpts, if set off by quote marks or block quotes can be used. Otherwise, the material should be written in your own words and supported by the appropriate reference.

The website clearly indicates full copyright for digital images, and I think text so I think the same rules apply but I haven't looked as closely at that one.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tajama Abraham

Tweaked your nomination above. Added it to Template talk:Did you know and the article's talk page. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I contacted the school where she played and the school where she currently coaches to see if I could get a photo and one of them has responded so I've added a photo to the article. They were interested when I mentioned that it would appear on the front page and asked when it would be. I see that it is now in the list of approved nominations but I'm not sure how to know when it will be scheduled. Do I just monitor and wait till I see it show up in a loading queue, or is there some better way of figuring out when it will be scheduled? --S Philbrick (Talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

COI Requests

Hi Sphilbrick. I was wondering if you had the time to review one or two COI requests.[2][3] They are both items I would expect to take a bit of time, but even if you only have time for one, it would be greatly appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll try, but I have some prior commitments I must address first.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, you were right about it taking some time.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish there was some way I could make it easier, but it is always awkward and inefficient to propose changes on Talk in this manner. Editors often say to break it up into smaller changes, but that doesn't actually work either. I understand if you don't have time for it. I also don't mind waiting a week or two if you want to get around to it later. It's not urgent. CorporateM (Talk) 10:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Big family event this weekend, but should have some time after that.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thank you in advance. I will wait patiently for you to get around to it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Board meeting this evening, but I'm looking at Bain, and should have some comments tomorrow.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Philbrick! Going through it line by line like that must have been quite exhausting, but at least it has been thoroughly reviewed. I'll pry wait a bit to make sure it's settled before nominating it for GA. I presume you're not going to look at the other COI item later on are you? It's a little easier (three specific problems rather than a full draft), but I figure you are probably pooped out by now ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, plus, I just got a call about a meeting not on my calendar. --S Philbrick (Talk) 17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Delta Theta Phi

Thought that I'd changed enough. I know there were some sentences that were the same, but I though they were factual enough that copying direct was fine. Will try again.Naraht (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It looked far too close for me.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, fall back position is to start from the text out of the 1920 Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (pre-1923 means no copyright issues) and then fold in from the other document as appropriate. As for the merge in the 1990s, I'm going to try to make that a separate article as well.Naraht (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Naraht: OK, please make sure your edit summary mentions the date of the source text. There's a tool which looks for copyright issues, and it isn't smart enough to look at dates, so it will help avoid inadvertant reversion if you mention it in the edit summary. While the tool will still flag it, the humans that use the tool will look at the edit summary.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Will do. I wonder if that tool could pull the part of the tool that converts google book addresses to cite. *that* does scrape the year of publication. See http://reftag.appspot.com/?book_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D1qoVAAAAIAAJ . I also tend to include  into the text as well.Naraht (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

G13

A user might be requesting undeletion of a page which you deleted as G13 – see User talk:Stefan2#Deleting my sandbox draft. However, it's possible that the user actually is talking about the talk page of the deleted page. If the page is undeleted, note that some early revisions of the page were deleted as a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice I left a note on your page is am not perfectly sure which one it is.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tajama Abraham

On 3 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tajama Abraham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tajama Abraham survived Hurricane Hugo by hiding in a commercial refrigerator with her family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tajama Abraham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tajama Abraham), 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.

Alex Shih ^Talk 04:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.11% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for October:

Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries

Continuing from month to month:

#1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Sphilbrick. I'm really happy to see you have joined us as a member of WiR. With your interest in baseball, you should be able to add many more biographies of women participants. Feel free to comment on our WiR talk page. If you run into any problems, just let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.

[1]