User talk:Dnllnd

I'm a little late...
Looks like I may be a little late to the party here but I just noticed that you had a lot to do with the superb FA on residential schools. I was pleasantly surprised a few years ago when I saw that not only was the article not a complete mess (unlike a lot of Canadian history articles...) it was also one of the better articles I've read. I refer to it often and send it along to people when I can. It's still something to be proud of. Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Dnllnd, and welcome to Women in Red. I see that without being a member of the project until now, you have written quite a number of well-presented, informative biographies of women. We look forward to many more. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The truth is that I've thought of my self as a member for a while and overlooked officially joining until now. Thanks for the welcome! --Dnllnd (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Allison J. Doupe
Hi Dnllnd: An article on Allison J. Doupe that you wrote back in 2015 has just been listed on the WP:BIRDS cleanup list as having a dead link. I investigated and found the link is, indeed, gone. The Klingenstein Philanthropies site, which you'd listed as a ref for her fellowship there, only now lists fellowships from 1998 onwards. She received hers in 1993. I've stuck an tag on the award for now. Do you have access to another source showing her receipt of this fellowship? MeegsC (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The newer link to awards is here. MeegsC (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind – I just found the new link for the neuroscience fellowships. Sorry to have bothered you! MeegsC (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Glad you found what you needed! --Dnllnd (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Integrate
The word is meaningless. It might mean an organizational chart reshuffle. If the intended meaning is that they wanted the kids at residential schools not day schools -- and I do get that -- then let's just say so without ten-dollar words. I realize that I am doing a lot of tagging but I figure you are a professional who can take it, and I anticipate a lot of page views in the coming days. I have done a lot of these readability edits; bear with me and I think we can get this into GA status. Btw I guess the review for that is in the archives?

ps, I see some of my tags from last night have already been addressed, thanks for that Elinruby (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * To echo what I've said in another response, the 'ten-dollar words' you are taking issue with serve an important purpose. The article doesn't need to achieve GA status because it already has FA status and has appeared on the Wiki main page. Several of the jargony words were intentionally included because of the Feature Article review process. I deeply appreciate the work you're doing to improve the readability of the page and can tell precision means a great deal to you. I feel the same way. I am, though, struggling to make sense of your various 'who' tags when several of them are clearly answered by the references at the end of the statement's you're flagging. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Feature Article review info is here.


 * Perhaps you will deign to ask me a question next time. To answer your concern, flags constructions like: 'it was decided that the mortality rate was not a concern.' For example. This is not a direct quote, just an attempt to explain that sometimes it is important WHO decided it was ok for kids to die. For example. More can be found on the talk page in the section titled 'Weasel words' and at the weasel words article. When you are quoting a racist trope it MUST be clear that this is not the voice of Wikipedia. This is different than citations. Also, the language in your references does not match your quoted language. It's along the same lines but putting something in quotes means that this is exactly what was said. Do you need a link for that? Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Deign to ask you a question? I respectfully responded to your comment, explaining some of what I was confused about, while acknowledging how much I appreciate the work you're doing to improve the readability of the page. You have, in turn, responded with a sarcastic and pedantic explanation of what the Who tags purpose is and have accused me of being condescending. I have been responding to you in WP:goodfaith and can commit too continuing to do so  in the future. It appears, thought, that my comments have been taken in a negative way. This current response suggests we're veering into unproductive and WP:PA territory and if we can't find common ground, perhaps we should stop interacting. How would you like to proceed? --Dnllnd (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * see WP:QUOTE:
 * "When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subjects should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia". Elinruby (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I do not question your good faith, nor do I think you are racist or anything but well-meaning. I do think you are allowing your ego to interfere with your editing. I submit that sometimes on Wikipedia awards are given to recognize difficult work on important topics. For example, I have gotten barnstars for articles like Operation Car Wash that are still a mess and probably always will be. But at least that one is there now, and some Brazilian editors know that they cannot rely on machine translation. Dealing with you reminds me a lot of that process, actually. How would I like to proceed? Well, I am not going to go away, as you seem to be asking me to do. Here is what I propose: Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Stop asking me why I am editing the article, would be one way to proceed. You should not be on Wikipedia if you do not want to be edited.
 * 2) Either attribute your racist trope or cut it. It really adds very little to the article that cannot be paraphrased. Trying again: this is Wikipedia. What is acceptable style in a government report or even at the BBC does not necessarily comply with Wikipedia policy.
 * 3) I do apologize for being somewhat sharp-tongued yesterday, but I had gone to great lengths to attempt to soothe your ego, without result. I still don't believe I am having to explain what is a quotation to you.
 * 4) Please please please actually read the explanations I am providing so "pedantically". (By the way, do you *really* think this is "respectful"?)
 * 5) trying again: you said you were puzzled by the who tags. I tried to explain that they have nothing to do with references. They flag passive tense in the language of the article which can obscure responsibility. This is especially important for this article.
 * 6) I would like for you to explain to me slowly, without being condescending, why it is important to use "integrate" here, as opposed to explaining what happened.
 * At this point it's clear there's no middle ground to be found. I haven't once asked why you're editing the article and I have no idea where thinking I am or am not racist came into things. I've asked for clarification about your intent so that I can address the concerns you've raised and I've done so while repeatedly indicating that I can see the work you're doing is thoughtful, that I appreciate your attention to the related work, and that I know the page needs improvement. Take out integrate from the sentence. Edit how you see fit. I'll limit any further responses here or on the page talk pages of any other pages where we cross paths to providing requested information or confirming changes have been made. I'm sorry that things have descended into such unproductive terrain and I apologize for my role in that happening. All the best. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh please. And here I was actually coming in here to thank you for your more cooperative attitude on the talk page. You told me:
 * "I stated as much on my talk page and will say it again here: the page has and maintains FA status. It has undergone extensive review, and multiple times at that. The information presented wasn't simply added to the page without careful consideration for how it would be read, assessed and interpreted."


 * I am on a phone and it is really annoying to have to look up what you said and seem to have forgotten, is one problem we are having here. But fine. In the meantime, please do educate yourself on the difference between who and cn. I on my side will no longer flag vagueness for your review, in deference to your greater topic knowledge, but will instead attempt to remedy matters myself. 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

""Christopher Desloges"" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect &. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Desloges for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Desloges, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Christopher Desloges until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons at Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi archivist!
Hi Dnnllnd--I was perusing Category:Wikipedian archivists. There isn't a great number of you around, categorized and all, and you were the most recently active one I came across. If it all works out, I'm doing a presentation for the Society of Alabamian Archivists in a few months, about what Wikipedia can do for archivists. If you don't mind I'm going to pull up your user page, to sort of show them what a user page is but also because you address your professional relationship very concisely. I'm about to follow some of the links you put on your user page, but I also wanted to ask you if you think there are specific things that are interesting, useful, or unexpected that I might point them to--anything from articles to categories to WikiProjects. And I am going to talk about Wikisource a bit--but please tell me about what's there that I might now know about. In case it wasn't clear, I'm NOT an archivist, haha, though some of my best friends are. Thanks so much for whatever you have to share. (If you want to share things off-wiki, or if there are negative things you don't want out in the open, please feel free to use the email function.) Kind regards, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I'm glad I followed that first link. We have Template:Cite archive? Wow--I need to dig into that and see its functionality. And that Coombs quote is very, very useful, especially since the few negative engagements I've had with archivists were with those who simply link to their holdings in dozens or hundreds of articles: "add content whenever possible, not just as a link; and only link if our collection (as represented by our finding aid) has something unusual or significant to offer." I had written something similar to that in my draft as a guideline, but this puts it very neatly and I'll just quote that. COI and what is appropriate to link, that is one of the things I wanted to address, and if you have any other useful and concise bits of advice, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I don't have anything to add to what is covered in the articles and slides I link to on my talk page. Hope they continue to prove useful as you prepare for the talk! --Dnllnd (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

""Elaine M. Catley"" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect &. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Virginia Ali
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Emma Healey (Canadian writer)
Hello Dnllnd -- Thanks for contributing this article. I removed the name of the male professor that she accused, as (as far as I can see) no allegations were proven. I'm aware that he is named in the sources but Wikipedia Googles much higher than newspaper articles and it greatly increases the search engine prominence of the allegation.

I have to admit I'm also a little worried about notability; while you mention three collections there's only one review, and that's published in a blog not formally in a newspaper/magazine. Are you aware of any other reviews or award nominations? I looked quickly in the Wikipedia Library top-level search but it's being drowned by the other writer of the same name. It would be nice not to feel that Healey's main claim to notability is to do with the sexual misconduct case. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are tons of reviews in major newspapers and trade publications like Quill and Quire. Notability isn't an issue on that front. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great -- but they need to be cited in the article, to facilitate it being patrolled. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added several to the page, thanks for flagging it as a concern. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination of Kelly Goldsmith for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Goldsmith 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 Articles for deletion/Kelly Goldsmith& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

 * Love it! Thanks for letting me know :) Dnllnd (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Daljeet Kaur


A tag has been placed on Daljeet Kaur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Daljeet Kaur. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Albert Lin has been accepted
 Albert Lin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Albert_Lin help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Jessamyn (my talk page) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women In Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging