User talk:Hmlarson/Archive/7

xff

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 20, November-December 2016 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Partner resource expansions
 * New search tool for finding TWL resources
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikidata Visiting Scholar

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

Jacynta Galabadaarachchi
Hi there. . now I've seen more broadly whats trying to be achieved in terms of adding women sporting teams and players, and a silly self-perpetuating gender-biased AfD process based on flawed notability guidelines, I'll not trim any new article in this space. Even though I think my edits for Jacynta Galabadaarachchi were reasonable for balance for an established article, I think having an article initially being a little off topic, and with duplicated references for the same 'event', it is needed at this time because of the bigger picture.

Hopefully, I will remake those edits in a couple of years' time when male WikiEditors are comfortable that female sports is a legitimate topic for this encyclopedia. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Good articles such as Carli Lloyd, Abby Wambach, Megan Rapinoe, etc. also summarize seasons as it provides context. Thanks for your work. Hmlarson (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste page moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Yuly Muñoz a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Yuli Munoz. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting
Do not revert my edits, especially without explanation, when I'm actually trying to explain why the assistance I've given has been thrown back at me and the seemingly deliberate misunderstandings of that project entirely dissuade long-term editors who actively seek to help such minorities (e.g. my work with WP:ACCESS over the last decade) from ever helping again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird. I did not revert. I did get an alert that you reverted mine - but both messages appear to be on the page. Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange. Page history is showing I did - however, I didn't actively do this. I suppose it's possible I clicked the wrong button - but seems like I would've noticed that. For the record, I have never reverted anyone's edits on talk pages and apologize for the error. Hmlarson (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, it happens. But please, and you know me of old, I'm trying to help the project.  Going at it too hard, like MurielMary is doing, will do more harm than good.  It's like when I dared to try to get a featured list on the main page.  Well, five years later we get two a week on there.  It's under-represented, but it's at least represented.  Let's do that too for the b/d section on OTD.  Gently, gently, catchy monkey and all that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, your good intentions are clear with all of the tremendous work you have done. Sometimes words from a keyboard are not perceived as we intend - particularly in a space known for some toxicity. Hmlarson (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10
Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:



23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Katherine Johnson
Why did you revert me at Katherine Johnson? My edit was a reversion of possible vandalism, at best misguided edits. The sentence, "Katherine Johnson continued her career at NASA space station." (which you restored) makes no sense whatsoever. --Krelnik (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Sorry - was not intended. Hmlarson (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah no problem - I should have guessed. I've done the same thing! Those rollback links are like magnetic for accidental clicks. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Jacqui Ceballos
Hmlarson, for a third time you have reverted edits on the Jacqui Ceballos page without an explanation or valid reason provided. And it's been done despite my requests to you in edit summaries, as well as the following pinged message to you on the article talk page:
 * , you have again removed the sentence: "Her husband helped her open an export-import clothing business in New York which provided her the means to separate from him and return to the United States." Source: .) Your edit summary states "not cited in source." Yet in the source, Ceballos states: My husband returned home as though nothing had happened, but I was different, and so was our marriage. Finally he helped me start an export-import clothing business so I could travel back and forth to New York. What a joy to be there again. I knew I'd never return to Bogota. Clearly, it is in the source. I have no problem if you wish to make improvements to the wording -- that is always welcome. But cutting sentences of sourced content requires a valid reason. I would appreciate having some clarification. — CactusWriter 18:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. It's not helpful if you make blanket reversions without any effort to discuss them. It certainly can be considered disruptive. (And it appears from your talk page that this may not be an isolated incident.) Please understand that discussion of one's edits when requested (WP:TALK) is a required behavior here. I'd appreciate your adherence to this. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? The article history indicates something else. Hmlarson (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Here's the Jacqueline Ceballos article history that I see:
 * March 16, You deleted sourced text without explanation.
 * March 17, I restored the content with an edit summary of a valid reason and a request to use talk page
 * 5 minutes later, you reverted with an edit summary of “not cited in source” which was false
 * 20 minutes later, I wrote a explanation to you on the article talk page, pinging you with a request for clarification
 * Despite you making hundreds of more edits that March 17 and March 20, you never bothered to respond to the talk page request.
 * After waiting 4 days, I restored the content on March 21 with an edit summary, again pointing you to the talk page discussion
 * One hour later, you again removed the sourced text without an edit summary, nor any explanation
 * Which brings us to your talk page. What is the "something else" in the history that I'm missing here? (I wear thick glasses, so my missing something is always a possibility.) And would you care to clarify your edits? — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reasonable editor can look at the citation for the sentence and see that part of it ("which provided her the means to separate from him and return to the United States") is not cited anywhere in the reference provided. Did you add that sentence originally? If so, feel free to edit it and add a reference. Hmlarson (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, a discussion of content. So now I see that despite removing the entire sentence, it was only a portion of it that you objected to. This would have been easier if you just said so. Now...
 * IMO, the entire sentence does summarize her remarks in the reference. Ceballos wrote about being "miserable" with her husband and marriage and society; and began "plotting my way back to New York City" and then immediately wrote about her husband helping her start the business which allowed her to travel to New York and never return to Bogota, where she "got an apartment, he sent the children, and thus started the most important chapter of my life." That all seems clear to me. In other words: Did Ceballos want the marriage to be over? Yes. Was Ceballos trying to find a means to return to New York? Yes, she said so. Did the business allow her the means to do that? Yes, she said so. Did it allow her to stay in the New York, get an apartment, get her kids and never return to Colombia and to her marriage. Yes. If the sentence is unclear as written, please propose a better rewording which describes the her situation more clearly because it seem the facts are evident in the source. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. Why is this so important to you? Hmlarson (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarity. The defining moments are key to biography. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I plan on improving this article further and submitting for GAR. If you think that your argument for inclusion of "which provided her the means to separate from him and return to the United States" is valid enough to pass muster in GAR - by all means - revert away. Hmlarson (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I look forward to seeing the expansion. By the way, you also added this to the article sourced to the Huffington Post. However, the Huffington Post article never mentions Ceballos. A reliable source for "Ceballos was featured in the film" is needed. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I love it when the fresh green leaves start to emerge from the mud. Hmlarson (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brandi Chastain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 21, January-March 2017 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikipedia Library User Group
 * Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
 * Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katie Rodan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cosmopolitan and Allure. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Aysun Aliyeva
CeeGee 04:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your e-mail has not arrived. CeeGee 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I'm not following. What? Hmlarson (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I received a Wikinote that you have sent an e-mail to me. Hoıweveri nothing arrived. CeeGee 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Women's First Football League
May I kindly ask you to check whether the Turkish Women's First Football League meets the criteria to be included into the Top level leagues which are not fully professional - Women's leagues? Thank you for your time. CeeGee 05:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * -NFOOTY rarely applies to the majority of women's players playing in the top division leagues around the world - I rarely consult it as any kind of credible source. If it's not already on the list in the Women's taskforce, you could add it here. Hmlarson (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG trumps NFOOTY. Hmlarson (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

USWNT list / stats
Thank you for your invite. I am busy with my 9-5 job. Harvardton (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Frauen-Bundesliga


A tag has been placed on Template:Frauen-Bundesliga requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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 removed 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. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Frauen-Bundesliga seasons


A tag has been placed on Template:Frauen-Bundesliga seasons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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 removed 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. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Top level women's association football leagues around the world
Template:Top level women's association football leagues around the world has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Koppapa (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Attention: WikiProject African diaspora participants
Hello fellow project participants. Not sure how many users are still active as normal Wikipedia editors but felt the need to attempt to get a gauge on who can be called on for help with articles falling under the umbrella of the African diaspora project. According to the project's article table there are over six thousand articles related to the African diaspora; there's not a hundred at FA/GA grade and there's over twelve hundred that are unassessed. With Wikipedia being one of the major information reference points in the world today we should consider this unacceptable. Much work needs to be done on the rating of the importance of articles as well. With more communication amongst participants and a dedication to addressing the articles on the to-do list I believe we can make this WikiProject one of the most well organized and thorough on the site. If you are interested in collaborative work with some of your fellow project members, have certain expertise on any particular subjects, ideals on/about the WikiProject, etc. simply drop your name under the "Project revision" section I've created on the project's talk page and state your intentions and main points of interest in our WikiProject and we can attempt to move forward from there. Hoping to hear from everyone soon! WikiGuy86 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of NCAA Division I women's soccer programs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lafayette University. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

SvG clean-up
Hi, I noticed you are still restoring draft articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel. The deadline for the clean-up ended at 24:00 UTC 24 April 2017. There may be a slight delay before all the draft articles are deleted, but any moves of these articles from draft to mainspace after the deadline will be deleted. Thanks for your effort in trying to salvage these stubs. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any objection to requesting userfication or un-deletion of any that are deleted post-deadline? All meet WP:NFOOTY (all international-level footballers) and were cleaned up. Hmlarson (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection at all. Most of the SvG stubs are about notable athletes, and many are quite accurate. They just need careful checking and correction. The audit may take a few weeks though, so I would wait until the dust has settled. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Will you be notifying all involved editors once complete? Hmlarson (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do that. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jess Fishlock
The article Jess Fishlock you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jess Fishlock for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

An invitation for you
(To subscribe, Women's football task force/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women's football task force/Opt-out list) (Delivered: 16:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

Thank You
Thank you for the Kim Little Barnstar. I really appreciate it.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Skogerboe
I created an article for Jennifer Skogerboe. The problem is: Several sources indicate her hometown as being Leesburg, Virginia. However there an interview with Skogerboe in which she states that she was born in Yokosuka, Kanagawa.I would like your insight in this case, please. --SirEdimon (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Born in Yokosuka, Skogerboe was raised in Leesburg, Virginia where she attended Stone Bridge High School... is how I'd note that in the article text. Thanks!  Hmlarson (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Improving womens boxing articles?
I noticed alot of women boxers articles either have no third person sources or no indication of who they fought such as their boxing records I have started in some such as Diana Prazak, Deirdre Gogarty, Bonnie Canino. Where do you think we should start on improving the women boxers. I think every professional fighter should have a record. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Keelin Winters
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Keelin Winters 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 Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Keelin Winters
The article Keelin Winters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Keelin Winters 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 Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Hmlarson (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with an article
Hey there, I know you're mostly interested in women's soccer, however I want your help with something related to men's soccer. I did create an article for Josh Sargent. He is a young standout in american soccer. Despite not yet a pro player, I think he has enough media coverage to claim notability. I included several references. If you have time, please check the article and give me your opinion. I did my best, but since english is not my native language, I may have made some mistakes. Thank you in advance.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears to meet WP:GNG. Nice work! Hmlarson (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but they nominated my article for deletion. Stating that it doesn't notable.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mia Hamm
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mia Hamm 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Appreciate your review. Hmlarson (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Newspapers.com
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Newspapers.com. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ellie Brazil
Thank you for sorting out this page a bit for me. Also where did you get the stats about her caps from? Cls14 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They include stats on the England FA profile pages. Thanks for creating the article! Hmlarson (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill
Re: your last edit on Gwen Ifill - what I was trying to get across was that we usually only use the "birth name" field in the infobox when a person's full name at birth is known (ie, without using initials for their middle names). I think it's a bit unnecessary and just adds bulk to the infobox when the info is incomplete anyways. I'm not going to petty edit war about it, but perhaps a talk page discussion may be in order. Connormah (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a guideline to support this? It is her known full name (not Gwen) as supported by the reference. Hmlarson (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mia Hamm
The article Mia Hamm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mia Hamm 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22
 The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 22, April-May 2017

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * New and expanded research accounts
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
 * Bytes in brief

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviews
Hi Hmlarson, great to see another reviewer! Just a tip, comment sections need to be a level 4 header to not glitch formatting - like this. (thx for review BTW) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note to self
Remember this: Thanks Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/John Bollington
 * Articles for deletion/Richard Brown (footballer)
 * Articles for deletion/Bianca Gray
 * One more: WP:NHOCKEY vs WP:NFOOTY. Hmlarson (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

FPL-relevancy
Could you explain to me why you added the text including "9-time winners and 4-time runners-up in the 15 editions of the UEFA Women's Champions League" for the Frauen-Bundesliga entry at WP:FPL? I don't really see the relevance to the subject of the list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been updated. Could you please explain your desire to delete it + my subsequent edits at WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, explanatory notes will elaborate on the scope of professionalism in a particular league, like the the ones you added for the Italian and English top flights. This makes it clear, even to the uninitiated reader, why the leagues are not considered fully pro. The note you've added for the Frauen-Bundesliga does none of these things. The fact that there is more money in this league than in other European leagues doesn't change the fact that the league is still semi-pro and by itself this fact is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions about the other leagues in question. Including it makes it sort of look like the league is listed in the wrong place. I could easily see someone misinterpreting that as an assertion of full professionalism. The success of German clubs in European football has no direct bearing on professionalism, and so does not belong in this list. As such, I have removed it again, putting both of us at three reverts on the day. Remove it again and I will right you up for edit-warring. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To also let you know i have removed the links to the list of women's top level leagues. Since they don't discuss professionalism in any way they are not really relevant and potentially misleading. I have also removed your addition of the Mexican league to the list of fully pro women's leagues. Whilst in my mind I am relatively happy to see it added based on the source you have provided, I think it is wise to take it to the talk page and obtain a consensus first given this is a page widely relied upon as support to a notability guideline rather than make a unilateral addition. Fenix down (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You've proven the need for WP:WOSO quite clearly. Hmlarson (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, if anything my previous comment shows that I support your proposal to add the Mexican league. I've just asked you to discuss things and gain documented consensus before making changes to certain pages, rather than making unilateral decisions, it's kind of how WP is meant to work. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird. Where does it say that on WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, not really, it doesn't need to say it at WP:FPL, beacuse it says it here. In one of the policies. One of the core policies. That you're well aware of. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONACHIEVE on that same page: "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." So if your statement above "if anything my previous comment shows that I support your proposal to add the Mexican league." is true, why did you a) delete it and b) not start a discussion on the talk page? Hmlarson (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, you unilaterally decided a league was fully professional. Although I think the source you provided has merit, it is not conclusive (comments in there as to there being no TV deals currently could be a sticking point for some people), plus generally, certainly since I have been involved in it, additions have been discussed and consensus achieved prior to updating WP:FPL to prevent the possibility that other editors will go and create articles when the league may be removed following further debate. That is why I removed it. I haven't started a discussion because I haven't been editing that much recently. Plus with the season not due to start for a little hwile, none of the players within it are notable yet, so there is plenty of time to have the discussion. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You think that'll pass muster when editors start digging into the article essay history? Hmlarson (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly my experience in the last couple of years, but the list is nearly a decade old and has been active well before I had any involvement with it. I think the early lists were done unilaterally but they seem to have stood the test of time. What happened in the past is not really relevant. It is always better when dealing with guidelines and pages that inform guidelines to have a proper documented consensus, and that is what is done now. If you fancy digging around, be my guest. I'm not sure what you would hope to achieve. Seems to me time would be best spent actually starting a discussion on the Mexican League. Like I said, it's something I would probably support and if no one raises any objections, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added. Then there is something in writing and people have the chance to do their own research and if they miss the boat then so be it. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Looking at the WP:FPL reverts with no discussion started on the WP:FPL talk page and the decision for and you to bring this instead to my user talk page, this whole thing could easily be perceived as bullet points #3, #5 WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Although, I'd say it's a slight improvement from my with first interactions in 2013. Sure does take an extraordinary amount of work to make any changes to women's football on that WP:FPL essay.Hmlarson (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted you to understand my reasons for reverting. It has nothing to do with ownership.
 * Your initial additions regarding the German league were completely unnecessary, FPL is a list of leagues deemed to meet a given criteria, it doesn't need any additional written content other than the list of leagues stating whether they are fully pro or not. I fully support SirSputnik's decision to remove them, no other league has any such notes.
 * Regarding your linking to a list of top women's leagues, this is potentially confusing, particularly in the list of leagues deemed fully professional as it might give a reader the impression that all those leagues were deemed fully pro. Again, we don't link to any other similar lists for the men's game.
 * On the removal of the league, I have done nothing but ask you to seek consensus at the talk page to establish a formal documentation for the league if / when it is added and indicated that unless significant opinions to the contrary were raised that I would support it. That seems to be the very opposite of being OWNy.
 * Finally, whilst I agree GS's initial comments to you were pretty short and sharp and he could have been a bit more diplomatic, you must understand how such conduct and attitude can appear to others. By the looks of that conversation, you added unsourced content to FPL and were asked not to. Instead of discussing properly, barely ten minutes later, you continued to add unsourced content to a different area. When again asked not to, you continued to avoid actually discussing the issue and launched a personal attack calling him a bully. Regardless of how well GS may or may not come out of that exchange, I'm not sure how you think you come out of it as anything other than somewhat disruptive and antagonistic. You must see that its difficult for anyone to see that conversation in isolation and assume that you are anything other than at fault there. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-reading WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and comparing your comments. I'll have to get back to you later. Hmlarson (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe also re-read WP:AGF while your at it. I started this discussion here because I had a question for you specifically. But instead of answering the question asked, you tried spin this in some sort ownership thing and complain about it being difficult to make changes to WP:FPL. I have no particular desire to antagonise you, but you're not doing yourself any favours by steadfastly refusing to answer even the most basic questions about the content you're trying add. You do see that that's you're doing, right? One somewhat heated discussion later, and I'm still just as confused about why you think the comment about the success of German clubs in European football is relevant to the subject of the list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "You do see that that's you're doing, right?" Yes, I am trying (as other editors have done over the years) to add relevant content about women's leagues to WP:FPL and it not be deleted by you, Fenix down or GiantSnowman. I've got to get back to re-reading WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. More soon. Hmlarson (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like I inadvertently omitted (ref). Hmlarson (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

Query
Forgive me for asking here, but I can't find this query posed on talk or project pages, but as an active women's football editor, do you know of any discussion concerning moving national sports teams from "_ national football team" to "_ men's national football team" (all other sports included)? The male as default option looks starker by the day and undermines efforts to tackle gender disparity. I hope this made sense! Thanks in advance. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are a few suggested areas to look that I am aware of - there may be others if you look in various national team talk page archives:
 * * WikiProject Football archive search for "national team"
 * * Australia national soccer team talk archives search for "women"
 * * Talk:Germany national football team

Hmlarson (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot the WikiProject Football/National teams task force. might be able to provide some additional insights.Hmlarson (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ping me and post a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force should a discussion be initiated regarding this topic. Per WP:APPNOTE, anyone/any project/collaboration/task force involved in related articles can be notified of the discussion to improve overall WP:CONSENSUS. Hmlarson (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, any efforts to try to do any mass scale moving have failed because of a general argument that the men's teams are the default based on popularity, team success, FIFA rankings, tradition and branding. The only cases where getting men put into the name of almost any national team tend to be one where there has been explicit branding on the national level for the men's team as the men's team.  This is the case for the USA.  There was a huge amount of discussion about the Australia men's national soccer team article including men, which led to no consensus as my recall.  This was despite the branding as the men's national team, the women having a large amount of coverage, a higher FIFA ranking and doing better internationally than their male counterparts. --LauraHale (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , - Canada is another example: Canada men's national soccer team. Hmlarson (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See also the disambiguation page: Canadian national soccer team Hmlarson (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject of mass mailing: Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: August 2017
(To subscribe, Women's football task force/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women's football task force/Opt-out list) – Hmlarson (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits.
This sort of comment is completely unacceptable. Calling out editors who do things you disagree with is an appalling way to behave. If you make similar bad faith accusations in public again then I will look for an opinion at ANI regarding you being blocked. Editors have repeatedly tried to engage with you and have at all times kept you informed on your talk page as to reasons why they have reverted you. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Care to clarify? Hmlarson (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just replied to your comment re: starting a discussion about adding Champions League (and presumably Women's Champions League) to the WP:NFOOTY guideline. I included some points for making the WP:FPL intro/lead clearer - particularly for new editors - as well. Look forward to working with you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant the bit where you specifically accuse named editors of ownership. You simply cannot make bad faith accusations like that anywhere, not to mention that it doesn't look good to be looking to establish a new wikiproject and having comments like that in the rationale. Anyway,it's changed now so no need to discuss any further.
 * On your other points, firstly if consensus could be achieved that playing in the champions league or similar competition then I would insist that it applied equally across the men's and women's games. Will respond on your other points on the women's task force page but in general I agree with them, discussions over the last few days have shown me that there is a need for more clarity around FPL, although I would note that as "fully professional" is a Wikipedia terms so it is not so much that it should be referenced, more that there should be a clear introductory section indicating the sort of references that suggest full professionalism, what they might say and that there is a need for consensus to be reached on the talk page before adding anything to the list. Definitely think this is something we can work together on but we'll also need other editors to be successful. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Glad to hear you're willing to work together. I'm confused by this part of the sentence "although I would note that as "fully professional" is a Wikipedia terms so it is not so much that it should be referenced, more that there should be a clear introductory section indicating the sort of references that suggest full professionalism, what they might say and that there is a need for consensus to be reached on the talk page before adding anything to the list. " Can you clarify? Hmlarson (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its late here so will reply in more detail tomorrow but have added my initial views to your RfC. Do you want to start a thread at WT:FPLon the women's Liga MX? As it was your original source probably best if you do and cite the elements in it that you feel indicate a level of professionalism sufficient to be assumed essentially fully pro. In my mind the idea that there are teams owned by major tv networks and current men's Liga MX teams goes a long way, although the apparent lack of tv deals seems a bit strange in terms of professional financing but isn't necessarily a major issue. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but since you deleted it, it seems appropriate for you to initiate a discussion. Hmlarson (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, of course, undo your deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to have a proper discussion even if participation ends up limited, other editors may present additional sources that strengthen or weaken the case for inclusion. Happy to start it, will have a look at doing so today. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Your input is welcome. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Nigeria Women Premier League pdf documents
Hi Hmlarson, its a good job you're doing here. I'm here to seek your counsel concerning something. The NWPL regular season ended this week and I was sent pdf documents containing details of the league that just ended. I wanted to ask if there was a Wikimedia Library where I could license WOSO documents to? I will extract encyclopedic details from them for the WP article, but it will be nice if Wikimedia has an original copy. Darreg (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question . I'm not sure, but you could post your question at Teahouse. Even though you are not a new editor, someone there might be able to help. Let me know how it goes as I'm interested in the answer as well. My hunch would be this might be something for WP:Wikimedia Commons with appropriate permissions noted. Thanks for your good work on the NWPL and national team articles. Your work is much appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS . Sorry for missing that the NWPL season ended this week. I would've included it in the newsletter had I been more aware. Hmlarson (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the season usually run March - August? I'm creating a new column for the top-division leagues table. Hmlarson (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Hmlarson. Its a great motivation for me to be appreciated by an editor of your caliber. I will post in the Teahouse rightaway, hopefully I will get a favourable reply. I will update you of the outcome. On your second question, Nigerian women league is the most consistent and followed in Africa. This may be because of the success of the female national teams. The female FA Cup even has an oil and gas company as sponsors. Improving articles on the league and cup is the top of my ToDolist right now. I will be taking a break from every other thing I do on WP. There will be a super four tournament in Lagos that will determine the overall winner of the league soon. I will update the Wiki article comprehensively this week.


 * On your final question, this season is a defining season for both the male and female leagues in Nigeria, in that it will be the last time the league will be played in a full calendar year. As from next season it will be similar to European soccer calendar that starts in September and ends the next year. So It will not be 2018 NWPL but 2017/2018 NWPL, the same applies to the male league. The football federation wants everything to flow together as from next season. Thanks and great work you're doing here. Darreg (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

AfD comments
Have a look at the last 4 comments at Articles for deletion/Tony Ackerman, and we should probably bookmark that AfD to show as an example of why NFOOTY is so biased against women footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jitex BK squad
Template:Jitex BK squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joeykai (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lydia Canaan
Sorry for the delayed response! And thank you so much for the good and insightful suggestions—I'll begin implementing them right away. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've finished making the suggested changes and additions to the article. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Please stop removing prods that are in clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY, this creates an unnecessary need for AFD.Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DELETE, WP:N, and WP:VERIFY for a better understanding of how these processes work on Wikipedia. Hmlarson (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if you look through the discussions listed here as delete, there is a pretty consistent consensus that Turkish ice hockey players just do not meet the GNG, men or women. Perhaps should do some more WP:BEFORE and have better and more thoroughly written reasons in the Prods, but sending all of them to AfD does appear to be a waste of time based on the results. Yosemiter (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way for a reason . WP:DELETE If it's too time-consuming for you, perhaps you could bring it up with . Hmlarson (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with HMLarson here. WP:PROD is quite clear that any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag. There's nothing wrong with removing the tags. Yes it creates a bit more work for people if things go through AfD, but it also helps create a permanent record of notability consensus. Furthermore, it makes it much easier to CSD articles that are recreated if they have gone through a recent AfD. In a number of instances several editors including HMLarson have attempted to improve articles with sources they feel indicate GNG. This to my mind is the correct process; namely: PROD, PROD removal, attempt to improve, AfD, notability consensus, keep / delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only explaining where it was coming from. From the deletion discussions, my research into each one, and my thoroughly written analyses in the discussion, I would think it is pretty obvious to you that I read each and every source both listed and found on my own. There is a clear trend here on the sourcing and verifiability. I get that you are defending the women's notability here, but the problem is actually Turkish ice hockey notability, the fact that it has no presumed notability, and that these discussions and research seem to be proving that it does not have any. I would love for the opposite to be true but at this point I think WP:PROVEIT is more acceptable instead of knee-jerk keep votes. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you are comfortable claiming that unilaterally about every single Turkish hockey player, but to each their own.Hmlarson (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Only because I have yet to find one (in my research/opinion I guess). But as I said, I would love to be proven wrong. (Except for possibly Sera Doğramacı, but there is more there than just hockey, so I will remain neutral as my experience is in search for significant vs. routine hockey coverage.) Yosemiter (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Running Man Barnstar question
Hi Deathphoenix, I noticed you created the Template: The Running Man Barnstar + think the design is great - particularly the alt one. By any slight chance, would you be available and interested in creating a similar one for the Running Woman? Hmlarson (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there's a blast from the past! I'd be happy to work on an alternate, but I see that all of my old Barnstars have been cleaned up with alternate versions. The alternate version of The Running Man is here and it looks gender neutral (not to mention a lot cleaner and sharper than my original). What do you think of that one? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool - thanks for pointing that out . Hmlarson (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 at Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Fully Professional Leagues
Hi. Two quick points: firstly, please, and I am sure I have mentioned this to you before, do not add leagues that have not achieved consensus at WT:FPL. Secondly, In this instance, I would reject one of these sources as confirming FPL status as it indicates that the level of remuneration, while improving is still well below average incomes for the country. For Australia your source confirms a minimum salary of $10k a season. However, this indicates the average wage in Australia to be somewhere in the region of $80k a year. I therefore do not accept that sufficient salary is guaranteed to ensure the league is fully professional. For France this suggests the average salary is twice the average wage in the country so probably fully professional. However, I still think best to get consensus on this first so if in the future the link is lost that there is something to back it up. I have started a thread and indicated I believe this is sufficient for FPL confirmation. Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the W-League should be listed too, as it is fully-professional, i.e. every player gets payed to play. The difference between the league's minimum wage and the average salary isn't a relevant comparison. --SuperJew (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, this knee-jerk reversion of additions, only to open them on the talk page in a case you also think was a legit addition (the French league in this instance) is exactly the kind of experiences referred to when people talk about ownership of WP:FPL. Let people be bold, and only in cases where you don't agree with the changes (as in the Australian league in this case), then go to the WP:BRD cycle. --SuperJew (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, this has nothing to do with ownership. WP:FPL is part of WP:NSPORT. You wouldn't make a change to NSPORT without consensus, so why to WP:FPL? By having a quick discussion to record consensus helps protect against such eventualities. You might like to also stop flinging around accusations of ownership, it's your challenge that made me think this was a good idea. You can't have things both ways. Either you think it is a good idea to have written consensus to support additions or not. It is complete nonsense to challenge an editor to produce a discussion confirming consensus for one link, but then, when it suits your interests not to, to insist there is no need for one at a later date. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you changing your tone from previous interactions on my user talk page. Statements like this "I therefore do not accept that sufficient salary is guaranteed to ensure the league is fully professional." do not reflect any type of consensus. It's a personal opinion without a reference. As I noted in a previous discussion with you on my user talk page, there is no statement at the top of the WP:FPL essay indicating that the addition of any league needs to be discussed on the talk page let alone referenced. There are no instructions whatsoever. Can you explain why you've deemed yourself one of a few editors who can revert or make changes at will? Hmlarson (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, another editor challenged me on a historical addition as to where the consensus was for an addition, looking into it, I could not find one. As the link was dead and not archived this presented a bit of an issue and it seems sensible to me that to avoid this happening again, we should where possible look to have even a brief discussion on the talk page first. As such, I have specifically challenged claims you have made which I am quite within my rights to do and have simply tried to create a document of record for your other change in light of the challenge I have received in the past. I find it interesting that it is in your mind acceptable for you to change a key driver of a notability guideline using your own interpretation of a source, but it is not acceptable for another editor to revert this, question it and seek to gain wider consensus. Anyone can make changes or revert at will. Please review your understanding of WP:CONACHIEVE. This is an underlying policy of enWiki and is the reason why we don't need to state at the top of WP:FPL that consensus needs to be reached. Asking for consensus is not making changes at will, it is asking for other editors' opinions in order that a wider agreement may be achieved before moving forward. You may take it from me that I will revert any and all additions from any editor adding any league to the list where the source is not absolutely unequivocal in stating that a league is "fully professional". Just so we are clear, I reverted the addition of the French League so that we could ensure a clear consensus first (something which has already begun to be questioned) and the Australian league because I found the idea that earning less than $200 a week to be well below any grounds where someone could reasonably assume the league to be fully professional (hence why I did not start a thread on this). Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't recall what the minimum salary is according to an established consensus at WP:FOOTY. What is the amount these days for men's teams? Hmlarson (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a judgement call, hence the need for consensus on an individual basis. Also a global figure wouldn't work given the differences in cost of living on a country by country basis. In my mind, in these instances, $200 a week is nowhere near enough for that to be anyone's sole source of employment in Australia, however €4k a month in France seems perfectly reasonable given the average salary. Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Billie Jean King
Hello! I'm happy to see you asked for Billie Jean King to be peer reviewed. I had been thinking this would be a good time to work on that article since there's a new movie about King coming soon. Would you like to try and collaborate on improving the Billie Jean King article? I don't know all that much about King, but I think that article could use a lot of sourcing help and I think I can make some progress there. Let me know if you have any interest. Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Sounds good. I have limited time this week - but can take a look at doing some cleanup over the next few weekends. Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to take care of. Feel free to start a list on the PR or somewhere else. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Take your time. I'll probably start a list of ways the article can be improved on the article talk page in the next few days. Knope7 (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great film - have you had a chance to see it? I've been meaning to get back to the article - hopefully soon. There are numerous articles on here related to her. Seems like a good opportunity for a template. What do you think? Hmlarson (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I probably won't see it until it's on Netflix or something. I think it's a great idea to make related articles for Billie Jean easier to find. That can help us avoid going into depth on topics that are covered elsewhere. Knope7 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

W-League transfers
Hey, I started creating a transfers page for the current W-League. Have a look and tell me what you think.. Is it even worth having it as a page (I think so, especially as we don't have clubs' season pages)? How's the format? (improvements welcome). Because of the format of the W-League transfers (no multi-year contracts) I put in the re-signings section to differentiate between new players and continuing, but maybe it should all be together? I'm going to sleep now as it's almost 2am 😴. I'll continue to add to it tomorrow if I have time or if I don't get around to it, then it'll have to be after Rosh Hashanah. Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks well-referenced and format similar to A-League transfers for 2017–18 season. Nice work . שנה טובה! Hmlarson (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Shanah tovah to you too! --SuperJew (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added all the announced signings up until now. Some of the re-signings (Victory, Jets and Glory) I didn't manage to find individual references for. For now, I've added The Women's Game squads as a general reference, but I'd prefer individual references if you could find. --SuperJew (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started creating a page for W-League transfers for 2016–17 season too. I was wondering what do you think? Should transfers out of the W-League be included (like Goad joining Stanford Uni or Little's loan return to Seattle) (as they're not real transfers since there are no multi-year contracts)? --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Also, sometimes players are one season at a different club than they were the season before, but their move went through an off-season (Aussie perspective-wise) stint at an overseas club, so then it's completely confusing. --SuperJew (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think of a Notes column where you could elaborate? I took a quick look at the 2017 Orlando Pride season, 2017 Seattle Reign FC season and 2017 Portland Thorns FC season to see other examples of formatting. Hmlarson (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking in terms of length - right now I included outs, and it's basically only two clubs (Melb City and Perth), and it's already pretty long. Maybe having just ins is the right way to go as the way the league is (up to the new CBA) every season is basically a clean slate and all players need to sign new contracts. --SuperJew (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've finished with W-League transfers for 2016–17 season - let me know what you think. Wow, that took a long time, and it reminded me why it's hard to update women's soccer related stuff - on average the articles are much less updated than the counter men's articles. For every 2nd transfer I added to the page, I updated the player's page too. --SuperJew (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work, . Hmlarson (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of assists from Alex Morgan article
There's a guy on the talk page of the Alex Morgan article that says he's going to delete the statistics on assists from the Alex Morgan article. Saying something about a guideline. Is there a policy wonk on the women's side who can argue this point with him? To lose statistics on assists would be a real loss. &#91;&#91;User:Smallchief&#124;Smallchief&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Smallchief&#124;talk&#93;&#93; (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Christine Sinclair
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christine Sinclair 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christine Sinclair
The article Christine Sinclair you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Christine Sinclair for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christine Sinclair
The article Christine Sinclair you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christine Sinclair 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Nigeria Women League
This is just to let you know that 2017 Nigeria Women Premier League 1 2 has ended, specifically yesterday. I recall you were saying something about putting it somewhere on WP, the last time I was on your TP. I haven't had time to update and cleanup the article, but possibly that should be done this week. Darreg (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Do you know the months that the 2018 season runs? or maybe it is 2017-18. I think you said there was an upcoming change for months going forward? You can update the leagues table here: WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Leagues or let me know if you'd like me to. There are a few other places the season can be listed when it's in-season. Hmlarson (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the 2018 season will start in year 2018. The idea of changing the calendar for the league will not workout now. I will add the article to the page but I don't understand the last column. Darreg (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Notes column is optional. I'll add that to the header + instructions. It's just a space to add links or related notes that might be useful for creating the season articles. I saw you signed up for the WIR:The World Contest. Looking forward to seeing the articles you work on! I've got to get a list going of the ones I want to work on. If you'd like to add a list of players to add for the Premier League (or national team) to the Open Tasks page, other editors may be able to assist as well. Just keep in mind the players will need to have coverage to meet WP:GNG to ensure their articles are not deleted. Sometimes, I include a few sample refs after the players name when adding to the list. Hmlarson (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations. I don't think there is any Super Falcons player without a WP article, as for NWPL players, I'll pass for now till they make their debut for the national team, I don't have the energy to engage in an AFD dispute if it is nominated. Darreg (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ashley Hatch
Hello! Your submission of Ashley Hatch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Reaching Out Regarding Women's football NCAA Initiative
Hello Hmlarson, my name is Jay eyem, and I had some questions regarding this initiative for women's collegiate soccer. Another user has created a task force for college soccer, but I understood that the women's task force already had such an initiative. I am hoping to understand how this initiative works so that I can better understand the process, expand the college soccer task force, and to possibly contribute to the women's initiative. I also wanted your input on all of this since you seem like the most active and knowledgeable member of the women's football task force, so if you have the time to respond I would be grateful. Cheers! Jay eyem (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It basically serves as a way to encourage collaboration amongst editors interested in working on articles related to women's college soccer. There may be some overlap with the college soccer task force if they're being sure to work on the women's side as well as the men's. Hmlarson (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ladies' Laureus
Hey Hmlarson, I saw this and suddenly thought you might be interested in either editing, fixing etc the article, or participating in the FLC? It would be great to have some input from an expert in women's sport if you have the time. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ashley Hatch
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello Hmlarson: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  North America1000 17:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Central Girls Football Academy
Hello

Firstly, may I apologise for contacting you.

The above article has been nominated for deletion. I live in central Scotland and feel the Central Girls Football Academy article is very important. The club does a lot for the community and their women's senior team play in the second tier of women's football here in Scotland (from 2018) and they play in the SFA Cup, which is the national cup competition.

I see you are on the women's soccer taskforce. Women's football in scotland does not get a lot of exposure and many think this article has helped raise exposure of women's football in central scotland. There are not alot of sources for the club online due to this but the club were clear winners in the third tier this season.

The article deletion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Central_Girls_Football_Academy

I was hoping if there was anything you could do to help, you could help us keep this article online. I really feel this article helps improve wikipedia. There has already been support but if you could help it would be much appreciated.

Apologies again for contacting you.

Thanks

Kat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenemoon (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for signing up our system
Hi Hmlarson,

Thank you for signing up to use our system. Very sorry for this very delayed response. We have been working on a Signpost to publicize our study. Right now, we are waiting for more participants to sign up, and should be ready to provide recommendations soon. I will let you know when we will provide you a list of recommendation candidates if you are still interested. Thank you for your patience! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Appreciate your update. Hmlarson (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Review article?
Hi,

I noticed that you're a member of the Women in Technology project and I wonder whether you might like to review Draft: Caryn Marooney, an executive at Facebook who runs communications there. I have a WP: COI, so must reach out for an independent review of my submissions, even though I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor.

Thanks for considering this!

BC1278 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)BC1278

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging