User talk:Jesswade88/Archive 1

October 2016
Hi your message came through ok Ietlibarch (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrietta999 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the digitised TWE: Ietlibarch (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Jesswade88! Thank you for your contributions. I am Zeromonk and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Zeromonk (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Thanks for organising the event at Imperial yesterday. Please get in touch if you're organising more events and I'll try to help. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Kim Cobb
 Kim Cobb, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Ben Britton. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

SomeImage.jpg

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Abbie Hutty
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abbie Hutty 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/Abbie Hutty until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Carrite (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Abbie Hutty got 8,813 hits which is a good improvement on Kim Cobb's 1,296. It's big enough to go on the stats page, so I've added it. Well done. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Roma Agrawal
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm KGirlTrucker81. Thank you for your recent contributions. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

SomeImage.jpg

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! KGirl (Wanna chat?) 21:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Jess! I'm really pleased to see you've followed up on our October invitation to join WiR, especially as you have written so many interesting biographies of women scientists since then. Let me know if ever you need any help and feel free to contribute to the WiR talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Susan Goldberg
Hello! Your submission of Susan Goldberg 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! Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 16:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan Goldberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Susan_Goldberg check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Susan_Goldberg?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Liz MacDonald
Hello, Jesswade88. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Liz MacDonald, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Rentier (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Young Woman Engineer
Hello, Jesswade88,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Young Woman Engineer should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Young Woman Engineer.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello  CASSIOPEIA,

Please help! Tell me how to make it relevant. Jesswade88 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Jesswade88, Greetings, I saw you have deleted the copyright infringement content, it will be up to the admin to gauge if the article survive. However, to say that the subject's notability might subject to vote for delete in the later stage. Please familiar yourself on  the guide to writing your first article and you might want to use the Article Wizard to help you create articles. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Young Woman Engineer


A tag has been placed on Young Woman Engineer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://conferences.theiet.org/ywe/about/index.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, can you let me know how to improve the page to avoid deletion? I only made it because I saw the IET page Institution_of_Engineering_and_Technology had a some medals but not others. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Maggie Lieu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maggie Lieu 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/Maggie Lieu until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.  DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Meghan Duffy (scientist)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Meghan Duffy (scientist), Jesswade88!

Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Good job!"

To reply, leave a comment on Enwebb's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Enwebb (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maggie Lieu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Maggie_Lieu check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Maggie_Lieu?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Barbara Webb
Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. Jesswade88, thanks for creating Barbara Webb!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Reword the bits about head of a pin, and mental rotation into your own words.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi Jess! I'm working on a revision of the standards for WP:PROF. I moved the personal work I had in Google Docs to a Draft space at Draft:RfaProf. It's pretty long and I still have to format the references, but I'd love an academic's viewpoint. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Susan Goldberg
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Megan_Schwamb
Hi, I wanted to translate Megan_Schwamb and saw it was very outdated and short. I tried to expend it, and would appreciate your input, as English wikipedia is not my main wikipedia. Golan&#39;s mom (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vicky Forster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TED ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Vicky_Forster check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Vicky_Forster?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Sabine Hossenfelder for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sabine Hossenfelder 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/Sabine Hossenfelder until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Thanks--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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. 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 survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). 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 through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Sophie Deen) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Sophie Deen, Jesswade88!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A well-written article."

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (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 23 April, 2018 (07:00 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 will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Lisa Dyson) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Lisa Dyson, Jesswade88!

Wikipedia editor JSFarman just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Great article!"

To reply, leave a comment on JSFarman's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

JSFarman (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Nice work on Claire Simeone

Robert G. (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC) 

Wiki Loves Food
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's  going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Karmella Haynes) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Karmella Haynes, Jesswade88!

Wikipedia editor Triptropic just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you for the nice article about Dr Karmella Haynes, and for your valued contribution to Wikipedia and open knowledge"

To reply, leave a comment on Triptropic's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Triptropic (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Adrienne Stiff-Roberts) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Adrienne Stiff-Roberts, Jesswade88!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A suggestion: For finishing touches to biographies, be sure to add reflist below the References section header, as well as Authority control and before the categories. These ensure, respectively, that the references are properly placed and formatted; that bibliographic data can populate the Authority control box; and that the article sorts in categories by surname, per convention. It is recommended a Talk page be created as well, with relevant project banners, e.g. WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women scientists, and WikiProject Physics (or whichever projects have the most relevant scope). Lastly, adding 'Category:Living people' to any biographies of living persons helps better monitor such pages for vandalism or addition of contentious content. See WP:WFINISH and MOS:SECTIONORDER for more info. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Jenny Body) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Jenny Body, Jesswade88!

Wikipedia editor Barkeep49 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Glad to see a prominent woman scientist like this get an article"

To reply, leave a comment on Barkeep49's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kelly Chibale
Hi, I'm Robertgombos. Jesswade88, thanks for creating Kelly Chibale!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add the birth year and if Kelly Chibale is a member of FRSSAf FRSC eventually create a new section (when he became a member, etc). Let me know if you need help! Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Robertgombos (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Autopatrolled
I'appreciate your consistent creation of articles on important scientists. (yes, I remember I nominated one for deletion several months ago, but there have been no other problems. I have therefore as an administrator given you the "autopatrolled" userright. It won't directly affect your work, but it means that the New Page patrollers will no longer have to review your created articles, and can concentrate on the ones that do need their attention.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations on your recent award. It's well-deserved. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, not for the same reason, but after reading THIS, I needed to congratulate and thank you. Keep it up! --Daehan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Mania Women in Africa
Hello Jesswade88

I created XXII International AIDS Conference, 2018 and this brought me to creating the associated article Linda-Gail Bekker. But you had already done so. Thank you! :-)

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap.

Ear-phone (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ear-phone

Thank you so much! This looks wonderful. I am not at Wikimania next week, I would love to be though. I will start to help with these pages! <3 Jesswade88 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * <3 <3 Ear-phone (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!
I'm with Jane, she says thank you! :)

How can we help your initiative???

Brunosan (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) 

More congratulations
This is very good to see. Congratulations. DBaK (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well done Jess. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --Wolbo (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article in The Guardian not only shows what a tremendous contribution you have made to Wikipedia but shows that a lot more needs to be done to promote the contribution women are making to science. Great to see you are a member of Women in Red. You are certainly setting an example for others to follow.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

*applause* Fantastic work you are doing. Have you considered trying to get your articles into WP:Did you know so they can be featured on the Main Page? — howcheng  {chat} 15:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Seconded. Narky Blert (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thirded even!  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 13:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 4th'd. From the shy viola way in the back. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Blueshift
Hi Jess! I saw the recent Guardian article about your project and would like to commend you for the good idea and the lot of work you have done pushing female scientists from the red to the blue end of the Wikipedia spectrum, so to say. BTW, it might be a good idea to say a bit more about your project on your user page. Have you considered a project page and looking for collaborators? Greetings --WolfgangRieger (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WikiProject Women in Red is pretty much exactly that. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Just read the Guardian article. Well done - such a good idea and a huge amount of effort you have put in.

Phyjk1 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Some tips for your biographical articles
See what I did to Gertrudis de la Fuente?
 * 1) Add the magic word DEFAULTSORT (which takes a colon : not a pipe |) just before the categories to sort people as "Surname, given name"
 * 2) Once you've added the obvious categories, step back and think if there might be more
 * 3) Add biography to the Talk Page
 * 4) If you translate a page (a practice I thoroughly recommend), add translated to the Talk Page
 * 5) If there's already a pic on Commons, add it

My Oath, but there are some mean-spirited comments under that Guardian article! Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Congrats
I've just read the Huffingtonpost paper concerning your contributions about STEM women. https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2018/07/25/cette-physicienne-a-cree-270-profils-wikipedia-de-femmes-scientifiques-contemporaines_a_23489303/ Thanks a lot!! I'll translate some of them in French. LaMèreVeille (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it too on Huffington Post in french. Congratulations, Wboure (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mary Ellis (pilot)
Just saw your message at Talk:Mary Ellis (pilot). Sorry about adding and then not removing the template sooner, but using that template much reduces the chance of over-hasty deletion activity. Please do try to expand the article, although thanks to extensive expansion by MurielMary, there may not be much more worth adding. Edwardx (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Physicists in Red
Hello, congratulations on the Guardian article, HuffPost piece and associated media frenzy! Its great to see your important work getting lots of deserved attention and inspiring scientists and editors everywhere, keep it up! No doubt there's tonnes of interesting Women in Red (e.g. via etc) in your backlog 😉 but you said that “If you have a suggestion of someone who needs a page, you can write it in my talk page” so here goes...

Scientists in red as of July 2018
A brain dump in no particular order
 * Dr. Amanda Randles Biomedical engineer https://bme.duke.edu/faculty/amanda-randles winner of the Grace Murray Hopper Award
 * Dr. Sabine Hauert Swarm engineer @sabinehauert and http://hauertlab.com/
 * Dr. Hannah Critchlow Neuroscientist @DrCritchlow and https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?hannahcritchlow
 * Professor Sheila McIlraith Computer scientist http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sheila/ the most highly cited female computer scientist according to https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label:computer_science you need to scroll along way through that list to get past all the men to get to
 * Professor Margaret Burnett ACM Fellow http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~burnett/
 * Dr. Sue Sentance @suesentance Chief Learning Officer (CLO) at the Raspberry Pi Foundation and lecturer in computer science education at King's College London. PhD in Artificial Intelligence from Edinburgh see https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/people/academic/Sentance,-Dr-Sue.aspx
 * Dr. Edith Cohen ACM Fellow and Google research scientist https://ai.google/research/people/EdithCohen
 * Professor Aarti Gupta (scientist) ACM Fellow http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~aartig/ (not to be confused with the model Aarti Gupta)
 * Other women in red at e.g. List of Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery

Physicists in red as of July 2018
Since you're a physicist:
 * Professor Alice Larkin @aliceclimate climate scientist at Tyndall Centre already in wikidata at Q23760514
 * Professor Phillipa Browning Astrophysicist https://www.discoverthebluedot.com/profile/philippa-browning-1
 * Professor Barbara Gabrys FInstP http://www.materials.ox.ac.uk/peoplepages/gabrys.html co-author of
 * Professor Gabrielle D. Allen Astronomer https://astro.illinois.edu/directory/profile/gdallen
 * Dr. Yvonne Grunder FInstP @yvonnegruender physicist https://royalsociety.org/people/yvonne-grunder-7100/
 * Lots of other research fellows e.g. Royal Society University Research Fellows and more at https://royalsociety.org/fellows/research-fellows-directory/
 * Probably more female Fellows of the Institute of Physics though the IOP don't publish a list. Perhaps you can persuade the IOP to publish one like other learned societies do?
 * Plenty more female fellows of the American Physical Society https://www.aps.org/programs/honors/fellowships/archive-all.cfm

FMedSci in red as of July 2018
The Female Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS) all have articles, but several female Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences (FMedSci) do not https://acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/highest-percentage-of-women-elected-to-academy-as-top-scientists-recognised-with-fellowship, for example


 * Professor Jane Apperley https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.apperley
 * Professor Wiebke Arlt @wiebkearlt https://acmedsci.ac.uk/fellows/fellows-directory/ordinary-fellows/professor-wiebke-arlt
 * See also women at cambridge https://www.cam.ac.uk/women-at-cambridge there were a few there without articles last time I looked.

I'd love to write some of these bios myself, though I generally try to stick to articles about. Wikipedia editing is a bottomless pit and you have to draw the line somewhere! Happy to help if you need it Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Rosmarie Frick
Hi Jess, I came across the interview you gave to the Swiss broadcasting company. Then I found out that you've already written the article you promised. Thanks! I categorized and translated it into German. --Pakeha (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Gender Gap
Dear JessWade88, on the Dutch Wikipedia I have been working on the gender gap for several years now. First of all, my congratulations for the "honorable mension" that you received for your great effort to reduce the gender gap on wikipedia. Following an article in The Guardian (July 25, 2018) I immediately went to work on the dutch wikipedia to write the missing articles (in this case Patricia Bath and Eugenie Clark). My next article on the Dutch wikipedia will be about another important female scientist, namely ... Dr. Jess Wade. DirkVE (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned in The Signpost
FYI, you were mentioned at Wikipedia Signpost/2018-07-31/In the media. Cheers from the Assistant Editor in Chief ☆ Bri (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Leila Pirhaji for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leila Pirhaji 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/Leila Pirhaji 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. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just heard you on the BBC
Nice work. :-) (We will not speak of the hour at which I heard it on the radio.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Jess, I read the Telegraph article about your Wikipedia work on women scientists before I went to Wikimania, and it's brilliant! So I was quite thrilled that Jimmy Wales short-listed you for the Wikimedian of the Year award. Congratulations for that! Would love to stay in touch. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of ReviveMed for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ReviveMed 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/ReviveMed 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. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I’m so sorry, I removed the AFD because I thought the discussion had resulted in speedy keep, but I can see now it hadn’t. Please let me know what I need to correct, I am embarrassed and so sorry. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with ReviveMed. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 14:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Some biographies of women scientist
Hello Jesswade88, I propose you two possible biographies knowing that you work to create articles concerning women distinguishing themselves in science (Livia Conti, Viviana Fafone). Unfortunately, you will have to search all secondary sources. I could possibly suggest other biographies, but if I may make a suggestion given the purpose you are pursuing, it seems to me that the establishment of a network of informants from the academic world who could indicate to you all potentially eligible women scientists on Wp would greatly facilitate your task. At times, I create or translate these biographies among my fairly diverse contributions for the French version. Regards. Stefanos Stefanos (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Good work
When I stumbled upon one of the articles created by you, all kinds of red flags started coming up in my mind. When an article is contributed by only one editor, and the subject is not a famous personality, it's generally paid article, but then I stumbled upon your userpage and your articles and I felt bad for doubting you. You are doing a great work. Keep it up!! Coderzombie (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

please write a page for Katy Rezvani
please write a page on Prof Katy Rezvani: https://faculty.mdanderson.org/profiles/katy_rezvani.html see https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1801540 and her previous work Imm5th (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

request for comments
Would you mind taking a look at this page and giving some suggestions? Zoe Todd --Parkbenchmonster (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Parkbenchmonster, I have rearranged it so it is easy to read. Can you add more to the research section? Jesswade88 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will do--Parkbenchmonster (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Another new draft article
Sorry to bother you again, I created my first new draft article, and would really appreciate if you review it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aryn_Martin

--Parkbenchmonster (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see User:Smallbones/Urmila Mahadev
It's in user space. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say sorry about that crap; I am sorry I didn't see it sooner. The person has now been indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Jesswade88. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Swarm talk  22:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance. so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

COI concern
Dear, I feel a bit bad in bringing this up as I really admire the work you are doing on Wikipedia. Additionally, I know that you have been through these issues before (here, here, and probably some other places).

You have created the article for Ben Britton. , has created the article for you. This is fine, I guess. It does raise the spectre of COI as you both work at the same institution, as noted in the articles. I see that this issue has been hashed out before and I don't doubt that your article meets notability guidelines, that is not what concerns me.

I am slightly concerned about the new page reviewer right you exercised at Catherine Rae, a page created by. Catherine Rae is notable and the article would have likely been accepted by another editor. Given the cross-linkages between the your account and, I grow concerned about COI issues and I feel like I must state them. I do not think there is any impropriety here or maliciousness here.

The articles you both create are often decently sourced, increase diversity on Wikipedia, and are generally within the guidelines. I admire the work both of you are doing in contributing to the project. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Penelope Endersby
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

This guy is going to end up with notoriety instead of notability
He doesn't realize he's been rumbled, is still plugging away at deleting Sam Giles valereee (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

help with assessing women research scholars for notability?
Hey, Jess! I did a little work on the article on a research organization, Child Trends, today and noticed that all but one of their senior staff are women and only one has an article. I don't myself really understand notability for researchers and don't know if ANY of these women are notable. Would you have any interest in helping me figure out which are worth starting an article on? I'm totally willing to do the writing, I just don't want to start an article if the person isn't notable, and frankly I am baffled by notability for scholars and researchers. I know these aren't hard science people, so maybe this isn't your cup of tea? The staff page of the website is here -- the program directors and senior scholars section -- if you want to check it out first. And if you don't, no worries! valereee (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello valereee, I would start with the President, Emig, then look for the senior research fellows whose research has had the most impact. It's unlikely the rest of the exec team will have enough widespread coverage, but happy for you to send me names case-by-case and I can help evaluate! Jesswade88 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'll do that, and I appreciate it! valereee (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Press coverage 2019
Well, we had to start with something, didn't we? ;-) Happy New Year! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ben Britton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben Britton 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/Ben Britton 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. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Lester Mackey
Add also the biography of Lester Mackey. He is a respected Black scientist, working at Microsoft Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.30.117.108 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Clarice Phelps for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clarice Phelps 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/Clarice Phelps 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. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There have been people effectively tweeting for support against the deletion nomination, which is a violation of WP:MEAT. That AfD is almost certain to end up in a deletion decision anyway but so, too, will any others where similar tactics are used. It's an abuse of process, counterproductive and demonstrative of a significant potential bias in the tweeter that may affect their ability to edit neutrally.


 * WomenInRed has a lot of detractors as it is because of the issue of social engineering and WP:RGW, so it really isn't helpful to the general cause if people make mountains out of molehills, both in terms of the subject matter and the nomination. Nor if, as in this instance, they commit a multitude of BLP violations in the process. Something to bear in mind, perhaps? Far too many of the WiR creations I have seen have needed a lot of work but I think that may be in part a consequence of editathons involving new contributors. Make haste slowly is a good motto, as is following core policies such as BLP. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jesswade88. Judging by your comments at AfD and on twitter, it's possible you haven't quite understood why so many people are complaining about WP:CANVAS. Asking for help improving an article on twitter is not necessarily a violation of policy. However, it runs the risk of attracting individuals who are uninterested in learning our policies, and just wish to advocate for a particular viewpoint. The more contentious the topic at hand gets, the more likely this is to occur. Even so, I don't think anyone would be sanctioned for saying "please help improve this biography", as you did. The larger problem is with saying "please vote for this". That is explicitly a violation of WP:CANVAS, because it compromises the regular process of reaching WP:CONSENSUS. What's more, in a situation in which canvassing has taken place, administrators closing a discussion will generally be forced to disregard opinions expressed by newly registered accounts that were clearly created for the purpose of participating in that discussion. As such, it is extremely rare that asking people to !vote a certain way even helps that cause. In sum, if you ever notify people about a discussion on Wikipedia, please make sure that notification (whether on Wikipedia, or elsewhere, such as on twitter) is neutral, and does not advocate for a particular opinion. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is more complex than that, . Yes, a closing admin would pick up the single-use accounts but when someone is so closely aligned with a particular project (as I am and as Jesswade is), you get watched by people who share the same interest. Now, in my case that doesn't matter too much because the India project is a fairly generalised thing, but when the project is something like Black History Month or WomenInRed or LBGT-nah-nah (I lose track, sorry), those tend to be "social justice" projects on Wikipedia and everyone crowds round to pat each other on the back, create walled gardens and suchlike, which means even regular contributors who read the tweet could effectively become meatpuppets. The closing admin would struggle to pick those up but the !votes can often end up being along the lines of simply saying Keep without looking at the alleged problems.
 * Asking for help relating to an AfD in an echo chamber, such as WiR, whose goal quite simply is to get more articles written about women, is a big risk if it results in people !voting there. Best thing to do is just what has always been done: post a neutral note about the AfD at the project talk page if it seems that the project's members are not picking up on the notifications they already get via deletion sorting.
 * For what it is worth, I've had to dig into another of Jesswade's creations this afternoon due to a multitude of problems. I've still not addressed the close paraphrasing issue there but it will happen. So, at least some of the problems picked up at the Phelps article may be an issue more generally even though Roma Agrawal is indubitably notable. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging most of that, (though we can agree to disagree about WiR: I'm a member myself), and I thought I'd been clearer about canvassing. The fact is nobody seems to have explained here or at the AfD what the problem with canvassing really is: Jesswade has just been asked not to. Hopefully, now she knows why. Just in case I wasn't clear, Jesswade, you shouldn't be posting anywhere asking for "help" with a deletion discussion, or a talk page discussion, or an ANI discussion, or whatever, because you would be skewing the process of reaching consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice Vanamonde, I didn't know. But I don't agree that I engage in 'social engineering' or can't 'edit neutrally'. In reality, irrespective of my tweet, the consensus is hugely skewed anyway because of the lack of diversity in the people who edit Wikipedia.Jesswade88 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of not editing neutrally, Jesswade88. I'm just asking you not to canvas folks again. Wikipedia has a demographics problem, to be certain, which is far from limited to gender, but there's more to consensus than just numbers. With respect to deletion discussions about biographies of women, for instance, it's exceptionally rare that the outcome is affected either by the personal beliefs of the editors in question. Due diligence and skills in finding sources count for a lot more. Those qualities are rarely exhibited by individuals attracted to a discussion from twitter or elsewhere: instead, such users tend mostly to muddy the waters. So, with respect to "consensus is hugely skewed anyway"; maybe, but that's not going to be helped at all by twitter posting. Indeed, it might even hinder whatever you are trying to accomplish, because it will create antipathy on Wikipedia. Those editors who have done the most to address our gaps in coverage haven't done it through social media, but through knuckling down and writing (which, I acknowledge, you have also done a fair bit of). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fyi: nl:Clarice Phelps. Also present on fr, simple, cy. Keep up the good work, Ellywa (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What
led you to state She is particularly interested in DCE-MRI over Nola Hylton based on the reference that you cite? Also, we don't devote a sentence to each research paper, as you seem to be doing over many articles. Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the mid 2000s, most of her papers have included DCE-MRI. I didn't want to cite each, but you can look them up. She's published about 100 papers so I haven't 'devoted a sentence to each', but thanks for checking! Jesswade88 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that but I am concerned that this infiltrates into WP:SYNTH. Do you have any secondary source stating so? And, I wasn't talking about this part. article but rather about the many that you have created:-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the word particularly is damaging to the article, feel free to remove it. I don't usually discuss each paper by the scientists whose pages I mage, as to be notable enough they usually have published too many, but feel free to point out where you think I am going wrong. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Campaigning
Hi, please can you perhaps tone down the campaigning/WP:RGW style of your edits? Eg: At the time, she was one of few black women physicists with a PhD. isn't at all what the source at Nola Hylton says, although perhaps if someone trawled through every link on that page they could derive the conclusion.

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * She was the 15th African-American woman in history to gain a PhD in physics, do you not thing that's the same as being one of few? Jesswade88 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There are 155 entries there. Are you saying they are in chronological order? Is the source even independent or is it yet another campaigning group? Campaign groups are only reliable for statements about themselves, as are so-called news websites that are overtly intended for campaign purposes, such as Round Table India.
 * I'm also uneasy about promoting the "of colour" idea if the individual does not make a massive deal of it. In a BLP, that is tantamount to putting words in their mouth. Although I admit to not having read every source in that article and acknowledge that she is on a diversity committee (so are loads of non-coloured people).
 * Finally, when it is number X in a given field, that can tend to skew things. It's a bit like back in the day when the 100m sprint was timed to the tenth of a second but is now timed to the 100th and no doubt will be timed to the 1000th - these things can be repeatedly refined to make something stand out. It is often artificial, intended to serve a predetermined purpose. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I was the "first" profoundly deaf student to even go to Oxbridge, let alone graduate. I didn't attend a single lecture (couldn't hear them) and got no additional support, be it teaching or pastoral. I basically read and harnessed my brain cells. But I don't shout about it and it doesn't define me (I doubt I've ever mentioned it here in my decade or more of editing). Perhaps, however, she does.


 * Put it back if you want; I won't revert you. But know this: anyone who contributes here with an agenda is going to struggle to edit "neutrally". We've all got biases, sure, but those with overt ones that work to Right Great Wrongs seem disproportionately likely to end up in trouble. (That's experience, for I am not going to try generating statistics. An example would be people who were involved with the old gender gap task force and Gamergate things.) - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought that it was obvious that it was in chronological order, owing to it being a list of people by year they completed their PhDs, but maybe you didn't see that part (it's column one). I don't mind it not being there, but it is important to talk about the chronic lack of diversity in science, and how it impacts what and how we study. Hylton has gone on to work with various learned societies of African-American scientists to improve the representation of underrepresented minorities in science. Anyway, I don't want to fight, you can have those with other editors. I'm also sorry about Oxbridge, it must have been incredibly difficult, I hope that they give more support now. Whilst my bias may manifest in other aspects of life, I am not biased on Wikipedia, only making biographies of people who should have them - and would if they were men. I understand that this offends you and your friends on here, so sorry again. Jesswade88 (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jesswade88, I have readded similar text. The previous blanking of this information appeared to ignore the other existing sources on that paragraph, and the source I have added an extra reference to includes extremely clear statistics. In my view the previous blanking was unnecessarily aggressive.
 * Saying that, Sitush has opened an Arbcom case against me, presumably in follow-up to their rather ranty ad hominem claims of canvassing and my "years" of "pushing an agenda", though it's hard to tell as I have neither seen any evidence or their email to Arbcom. So it appears most likely that they are the one on a campaign that we may never understand.
 * Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This feels a bit strong to caution someone for violations of a norm, or at least something only described in an explanatory supplement. In terms of expressed biases, I don't see highlighting the clear and factual rarity (and hence notability) of African-American women with Physics PhDs as essentially more partial than *not wanting* to mention this, and like most accusations of identity politics, it is often a form of identity politics in itself.
 * Jesswade88 is making a positive contribution to the project in terms of quality and quantity, and I don't feel that conflating this with the policy violations of those on either side of the Gamergate situation is a fair comparison.
 * Thanks --Battleofalma (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Critics please back off one big step
I do not like the way this one editor is being confronted by a bunch of people. There's a lot of shouting and not much thoughtful consideration. Yes, we need to avoid canvassing. Yes, we need to uphold policies like WP:N but we can do so with kindness and try to encourage people who have good energy. Jess, it looks like you have a lot of energy and I'd be happy to help you if you are running into problems with articles being nominated for deletion. Jehochman Talk 05:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

C1 or not

 * Do you think Laure Zanna passes C1 of NPROF, comfortably? Does not seem to be so; if weight-contrasted with publications and/or other scholars in the same field (though conceding that this's not remotely connected to my academic discipline and I might be blatantly wrong:. Being fellows at colleges or winning the mentioned Outstanding Poster Paper award is not any indicator of notability. I was going through her CV and don't spot anything, very impressive. Also, FWIW, we discount media-coverage of part. research papers (in light of the PNAS one) to contribute to establish notability for otherwise every researcher who published a crazy research and was caught in the media-nets would have got an article; despite most failing to make it any big, thereafter. Wot do you se? Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * h-index of 15 per google scholar - which is in the borderline zone (i.e. TOOSOON) for NACADEMIC(1) - though I suspect an AfD would close keep (on account of sex, had this been a male subject - quite possibly a delete). Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would wait for Jess's comments. IMO; this's TOOTOOSOON territory. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern Icewhiz and &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b>  it may be ('TOO SOON') but I think the coverage of her work and its discipline is significant. She's also one of only 29 Israeli women scientists, and I think it is important to have her on the site, even if the page needs development as her career grows. Jesswade88 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , please provide a citation for the claim that she is one of the 29 Israeli women scientists.
 * I don't have a minimal idea about how this is a remotely feasible claim to make by any standards of defining 'scientist' but if you do cite that to a decent RS; I grant that she damn merits an article. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a minimal idea about how this is a remotely feasible claim to make by any standards of defining 'scientist' but if you do cite that to a decent RS; I grant that she damn merits an article. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The same concerns can be raised about Miriam_Rossi_(chemist). I am not sure about which of the part. criterion under NPROF; she manages to pass. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming Rossi is indeed the "Mary Landon Sague Chair at Vassar College" - that would see to be a WP:NACADEMIC(5) pass. She doesn't have a google-scholar profile, but going down the citation counts there she would seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC(1) based on what I think her h-index is (seems to be over 30). Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Over 30?! Can you point to the resource that leads to the conclusion, because it's wildly different from my analysis.I was checking the papers mentioned over here along with a few others and my find is that the cites are remarkably low for someone in the field around 40 years.
 * As to MLS chair; I will explain later. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at google scholar results - (+OR on top of it) - I do realize I am a bit wrong with over 30 as the hits also contain a Rossi from Toronto - it's still fairly high. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alongside her research at Vassar (which may be smaller than a professor of a similar age), Miriam Rossi is very involved with chemistry/crystallography education nationally. She's taught some impressive chemists (including Cathy Drennan). I think it is important to emphasise academics do more than just research. I will try find more references to add if you're not convinced, but I realise you're not convinced by anything I do. Jesswade88 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jess, please assume good faith. That's the most fundamental stuff and I have been enough courteous in dealing with you.
 * I have been cleaning up your creations which do suffer from a whole lot of problems but I have held myself back from blunt criticism; in light of the immense amount of good work that you do and try to do, for the betterment of the project.
 * If you are discourteous; it won't be long before I raise issues about your significant errors in the write-up of BLPs. For an example, over Osler's article you mis-typed a quote changing man to medicine. Not to mention that the quote is wholly irrelevant for an encyclopedic article and even she has not made a big deal of it, anywhere (prob.). I also don't find any evidence that she led the October survey by herself. Also, using phrases like She identified that....... is ridiculous. The survey identified those issues (and she does not deserve any credit for reading from that). It's quite commonplace that when the national medical association does a survey about anything; the opinion of the body is sought by media, which equates to the opinion of the President.
 * I do understand that having your articles vetted (and scrutinized) can seem to be intimidating but we all have the best interests of the project, in mind. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that. That's enough. It is weird as to why her faculty-page does mention such low-cited research only. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, it seems like the faculty page shows only the most recent papers and was last updated to include 2017. Faculty pages are of course not particularly known for being update-to-date... ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand that having your articles vetted (and scrutinized) can seem to be intimidating but we all have the best interests of the project, in mind. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that. That's enough. It is weird as to why her faculty-page does mention such low-cited research only. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, it seems like the faculty page shows only the most recent papers and was last updated to include 2017. Faculty pages are of course not particularly known for being update-to-date... ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, it seems like the faculty page shows only the most recent papers and was last updated to include 2017. Faculty pages are of course not particularly known for being update-to-date... ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"This is why I’ve written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia "
Hey Jess, what a great article: "This is why I’ve written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia". Thank you so much for what you are doing. I really appreciate your work. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ^  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wowzers! 500 is such an amazing feat - congrats! Massive inspiration for newbie editors Opto kitty (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Award lists
Hi Jess, thanks for the work you are doing adding biographies of notable women. You will see that I have been doing some cleaning up of a number of your articles, and there are a few recurring issues that should be easy for you to change your practice on. One really simple thing is to make sure when you add lists of awards to an article that you format the content as a list (with a * to begin each entry) and by putting entries in chronological order. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Melcous!! I had no idea. Jesswade88 (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Emma Haruka Iwao for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emma Haruka Iwao 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/Emma Haruka Iwao 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. Melcous (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)

use of citation data and related factors
Looking back over discussions on this page, I think there is need for some clarifications. 1. Comparisons of citation levels (even such comparisons as whether it is high or low) are meaningless except within a specific field. The average level of citations in any field is proportional the average number of citations given in papers published in that field. In fields where most papers give many dozens of citations, it take a very large number of them to be meaningful. The only one where AfDs have shown a clear agreement is current biomedical science, where at least 1 paper with 100 citations is needed for notability as a researcher. All other fields need fewer. Someone mentioned above making a comparison with others in the same speciality, and that's a the most exact way of going about it.
 * h values need interpretation h = 10 can represent 10 papers with 10 citations each, or 9 papers with 200 citations each and 1 paper with 10. In most fields, the first would not show notability; the second would. Someones notability depends on their best work. Even great scientist do minor work also--the distinction is from those who do only minor work.

2. "one of the first" is always meaningless regardless of subject, it's a WP:weasel word and can mean whatever one wants it to mean. It was mentioned above that someone was the 17th woman to get a physics PhD. If that can be demonstrated, that's what should be said (giving of course the reliable source). Quoting a news release saying "one of the first" is meaningless--it shows the writer of the news release is either incompetent, lazy, or deliberately promotional.

3. Awards given by an institution to its own people are worthless for notability, and I think even for inclusion as content. (there are exceptions from some major universities and even corporations)

4. Junior level awards and fellowships do not contribute to notability, and are in most cases not worth mentioning (again, there are exceptions). This holds even in such a field as sports, which most of us here think is drastically over-liberally covered in WP,)  Notability as a researcher depends on the independent  research, not the preparation for independent research.

5. Work done as a graduate student or post doc may or may not contribute to notability--it can be hard to tell, and thee are exceptions to every generalization here. What I typically look for is the date. Someone whose only highly cited papers come from their years as a grad student is  not likely to be notable.

And one thing that I think is more a personal view: Trying to prove the notability of marginal people detracts from the attempts to show the notability of the really important ones.  DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Surely this post is best aimed at the talk page for Notability (academics) rather than on a single editor's page? Some of these personal opinions are more suited to discussion which can then lead to mutually agreed changes to the guidelines, rather than statements (which are quite vague) placed on an editor's page - from the outside this does not appear to be constructive criticism. Opto kitty (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion nomination of Clarice Phelps


A tag has been placed on Clarice Phelps 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, such as at Articles for deletion. 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. —— SerialNumber  54129  07:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Ruth Durrer
First of all, thanks for creating the page on Ruth Durrer! You might have noticed that I made a few edits. I removed the list of courses she has taught, since teaching is a normal part of being a professor, and while a CV can be all-inclusive, the act of teaching a course doesn't really rise to significance for a biography unless it stands out. (For example, if one of those courses became a widely-used book, we'd definitely talk about that.) I also modified the citation of The Cosmic Microwave Background (2008) so that it no longer points directly to the Cambridge University Press website. This is per the guideline for external links, which advises using alternatives to commercial book sites. Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ana Achúcarro for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana Achúcarro 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/Ana Achúcarro 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. Netoholic @ 02:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruth Durrer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acoustic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ruth_Durrer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ruth_Durrer?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Your addition to The Optical Society has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. The content was copied verbatim from https://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Optical Society, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Netoholic @ 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarice Phelps at DRV
FYI Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Leslie Kolodziejski for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leslie Kolodziejski 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/Leslie Kolodziejski 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. Netoholic @ 11:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Keep up all your fantastic amazing essential work Jess!!!

Srsval (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Thanks for being awesome.
I appreciate it, so do so many others. I've subscribed to your Twitter feed and I'll try to help out with articles from time to time in the future. Michaelacaulfield (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

notability of a scientist
Hi, Jess! Yesterday I wrote Dongju Zhang (one of the team leaders for the Denisovan hominin announcement from yesterday) and it's been tagged for notability. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and give me any advice? If she's not notable (or not quite yet) I'm happy to userfy and wait for more sources, but I thought I'd see what your take on it was since she's in your area of expertise. I'd be grateful for any input! --valereee (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi valereee, nice page! There is so much coverage for the recent discovery, I think that you should be able to get notability (NY Times, The Atlantic, NPR). Is there any coverage for her previous work? It would also be good to have more on her academic background. I can see she's at Lanzhou University, but you could prove notability with her academic status there? Jesswade88 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I searched the U and googled her university email, not finding much. I really don't know that she's done much other than this, but this just was so exciting that it seemed reasonable to create an article, if only to scoop you. :) From something in one of the articles (too vague to be usable) I think she got her PhD ~2010, so she's pretty young. She is listed as Dr., not Prof. --valereee (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Sarah Tuttle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah Tuttle 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/Sarah Tuttle 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. Natureium (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I can grab a (so-so) image of her from https://vimeo.com/89974317 which is a creative commons licensed video. Would it be worth it? If you ask for it to be draftified, it probably will be, so if you plan to try to continue to improve it, I will. If you plan to let it go, I will do that too. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Smart thinking with the video. Worth it for Wikidata at least. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh. The best I could do was worse than I thought; it's a really dark video. I'll put it here, and let you (any you; it's a wiki!) decide whether it's worth adding to the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, given that she's apparently aware of the ongoing hubbub, someone who tweets can probably just tweet in her general direction and ask for a half decent selfie she'll license freely.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had really poor levels of success with that method; and believe me, I have asked article subjects before (though by email, rather than twitter). It's almost like people find it more rewarding to complain than to actually improve things. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Nia Imara for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nia Imara 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/Nia Imara 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ditto that!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Rylie Green
Hi, do you have any thoughts regarding the issues noted at Talk:Rylie Green? Someone mentioned the article in a recent ANI thread. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Jones
Hi, you are invited at Talk:Lisa Jones (scientist). Nat mentioned the article in a recent ANI thread. - &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For sticking to your principles and writing great articles, a fuzzy kitten to hug! Thanks for all you do!

Montanabw (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

DYK for Katie Bouman
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Charles Rotimi
Glad you liked the image, but ... you wrote an article about a man? Is that allowed? --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * :-) he is a person of colour, so still underrepresented on Wikipedia! I do have to stop myself from writing "she" though.. Jesswade88 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women scientists
Wikipedia needs articles for Sue Dan Lin-Chao, Maria Isabel Colombo, Luisa Lina Villa, & Erika L. Pearce. English translations are needed for Britta Nestler, Irmgard Sinning & Ulla Bonas. Suslindisambiguator (talk) 28 May 2019
 * Nestler done. I decided to leave out the controversy over her Leibniz Prize award as it ended up looking like "troll attacks female scientist, succeeds in temporarily pushing her off the podium and blemishing her record, but no wrongdoing was found" and I didn't think that needed to be in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

How to pronounce Clarice Phelps' first name
Quick question: is it clair-EESE, or CLAIR-iss (or something else)? I was thinking of mentioning her in a work presentation. Thanks! Zagal e jo^^^ 02:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Zagal e jo! I've been going with CLAR-iss when I've spoken about her. Did you see this great news? https://iupac.org/100/pt-of-chemist/#clarice-phelps-es Jesswade88 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply! I hadn't seen that yet. Very cool! Zagal e jo^^^ 00:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Marianne Walck
Hello Jess, I came here after reading the Noël Bakhtian article (super cool!). Our chief scientist at INL Marianne Walck would be a good candidate for a page as well. Thanks again for your work. --Dschwen 16:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neat thing about people who work for US government laboratories: they tend to have public domain photos! --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Benita Mehra image
I took the liberty of making some noticeable changes to your photo, hope you'll agree they're improvements. If not, we can revert. --GRuban (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jessie Christiansen image
2 questions: --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Should I crop off the telescope and just show the subject? I mean, she is an astronomer, so it's kind of her thing, but...
 * 2) Honestly, I'm not even completely sure that's Palomar. It wasn't labeled in the video, which was more of a promotion for her (Australian!) university. It certainly looks like other pictures we have of Palomar, and she works at Caltech, which maintains Palomar, so it would make sense that it's Palomar, but I am not an expert on telescopes, so can't guarantee it 100%.

July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK nomination
FYI: Template:Did you know nominations/Kristine M. Larson. --MrClog (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Pascale Braconnot broken sentence
"In 2017 Braconnot signed a letter to Emmanuel Macron to call for" ? I'd fix it myself, but I have no idea what you wanted to say, web search isn't helping. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks GRuban, hero for noticing. I've fixed it! Jesswade88 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eric Monkman and Bobby Seagull


The article Eric Monkman and Bobby Seagull has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unnecessary 'disambiguation' page - not a likely search term"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

businesstelegraph.co.uk in Bobby Seagull
Hi Jesswade88, I replaced the citation of businesstelegraph.co.uk that you added to Bobby Seagull (in Special:Diff/905542584) with a citation to the original Financial Times article. The businesstelegraph.co.uk domain appears to be a collection of scraped articles from other publications, and we should avoid linking to that domain per WP:ELNEVER. Please see for details. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   01:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you're doing!
Hi! I read about the work you're doing on the New York Times! Just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work! <font color="#FF8C00">Arjun G. <font color="#008000">Menon  (<font color="#654321">talk  · mail) 08:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats
Hello - I don't know you, but congratulations on your profile in The New York Times, and also, thanks for the work that you have done here. Anything that makes the encyclopedia more comprehensive and balanced is a very good thing in my book. Keep it up! Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Seconding (thirding?) what Arjun and BMK said. (Being featured on The Cover of Rolling Stone is one thing, but the NYT -- even better!) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! And can I help?
I saw an article about your work in the New York Times, congrats! This is a very worthwhile I'd love to be able to help out. Have you considered making a Wikiproject or something? Ebelular (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You might like to look into WikiProject Women in Red. Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Article for Y. Annie Liu
Would it be possible, by any chance, for you to write an article on Yanhong Annie Liu? I'd be happy to help. She's done a lot of notable research in Computer Science. <font color="#FF8C00">Arjun G. <font color="#008000">Menon  (<font color="#654321">talk  · mail) 00:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello <font color="#FF8C00">Arjun G. <font color="#008000">Menon 

I've started the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanhong_Annie_Liu, but there is very little information online. Do you know Prof Liu? I'd love to expand it Jesswade88 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * She was my undergraduate research adviser. But that was about 8 years ago, and I've only intermittently kept in touch. Regardless, I'll see what I can do to improve the article. (It looks pretty good already!) Thank you for creating the article. <font color="#FF8C00">Arjun G. <font color="#008000">Menon  (<font color="#654321">talk  · mail) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Laure Zanna for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laure Zanna 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/Laure Zanna 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.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Event coordinator granted
After reviewing your request for the " eventcoordinator " permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things: If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! — xaosflux  Talk 14:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
 * The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the " confirmed " permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
 * The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
 * Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

Thanks for your inspiring work
Thanks for all you do, I'm inspired that having more women in science on wikipedia will make the world better for young girls and boys in future. I've been reading your pages to learn how to create good pages. Keep up all the good work DrPlantGenomics (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Kristine M. Larson
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job on the article! --MrClog (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Amelia McNamara for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amelia McNamara 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/Amelia McNamara 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. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Iyiola Solanke for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iyiola Solanke 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/Iyiola Solanke 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. Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hope this is good?
User:GRuban/Jess Wade Images --GRuban (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh, this is *incredible*!!!Jesswade88 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looked through end of 2018. Found 97 images. If we assume you made 365 articles during that time, my hit rate is just over 26%. This is aided by the fact that so many of the subjects work for the US government (which releases all images as public domain), but on the other hand I'm not counting those which had good images already in the article or on Wikimedia Commons. --GRuban (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wanted to also say that this is absolutely AMAZING!!! Thanks GRuban, this is really awesome! Opto kitty (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

your assistance please...
I recently left a comment, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, where I voiced doubts over whether the 2nd AFD should have been closed as G4. I pointed out that, if the second version that you drafted (1) had been written from scratch; or (2) incorporated meaningful new material, or new references, it would not be eligible for G4.

Can you help me out? Do you remember whether the second version differed in a significant way from the previously deleted version?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Victoria Braithwaite
--valereee (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Anu Ojha image
So, I'm continuing my work illustrating your articles, and have hit a conflict with this one. Someone, probably the same person, has now removed this image twice, and I'd like to consult - is it worth the struggle to keep it there? It's really not a great image, low resolution, kind of fuzzy. But, it is the only one we have. So should we restore the image, or leave the article without one? --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! sorry to miss this. I don't think he wants to be on Wikipedia at all - not sure why. I think it's best to leave the article without one. Thanks for your hard work and encouragement! Jesswade88 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reading the Telegraph right now
Unless the Telegraph is just making things up, this sounds serious. I was going to email you, but you don't have one connected here. Could you e-mail me regarding The Signpost. just to get everybody started. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the Clarice Phelps deletion attempt, and it's real. It has happened to me too, see user:Bri/Created. Those were incremental incidents, however. This sounds more noteworthy as a systematic going through of all of an editor's creations at once? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph's reporting is based upon an edition of BBC's Woman's Hour which was broadcast last week. The incident was investigated and the deletionists were blocked – see ANI. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the Woman's Hour broadcast to Press_coverage_2019. But this entry has just been reverted.  Perhaps Gråbergs Gråa Sång can explain their objection to this record of Dr Wade's interview? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , hello! Per my ES, IMO it fits better at Wikipedia on TV and radio. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which are the articles that have been deleted and can we get them restored asap? --WiseWoman (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the ANI linked by Andrew Davidson, I don't think any articles were deleted, at least not the last week or so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I created a list User:Bri/Mass deletion women bios based on Black Kite's reverts of bad-faith del nominations. Not aware of any actual deletions. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Op-ed?
Jess, I'm going to be functioning as interim Editor-in-Chief of The Signpost this month due to vacation schedules. Would you be interested in writing an op-ed about the scientists/sexism issue? We have about two weeks until December's writing deadline. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just pinging again in case you missed this. Right now we're making sure that space is reserved under the appropriate titles for December contributions. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Bri, I'm happy to do this! IS the deadline boxing day? :-) Jesswade88 (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I guess it is. I asked another editor, though, to have a draft by the 22nd so we can check in and make sure everything's on the right track for Signpost content, which is a bit different from regular article editing. Does that sound OK to you? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you haven't written for The Signpost before so here are some easy steps to get the piece started. I have put your name in the Op-Ed section at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. You can click the "Start article" button there and it will preformat a page for you. We suggest you do it this way, but you can also write a userspace draft and one of us will move it over for you when you are ready, perhaps on 22 December. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jess, just a nudge ... I'm looking forward to your report on this. Are you still OK for December? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like this isn't happening in December. I'll mark it as postponed and hope that you are able to contribute to the January issue. Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm getting this ready for tomorrow! Sorry for my confusion.Jesswade88 (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my first draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Featured_content Jesswade88 (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Diane Havlir
Hello! Your submission of Diane Havlir 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Diane Havlir
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはJesswade88たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Desiree Parker
Merry christmas to you. I need a small help can you help in this draft which is of Desiree Parker, CEO & Co-Founder of The Foraging Fox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Desiree%27_Parker Rocky 734 (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not the same Desiree Parker, given that you can see her picture in https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisoncoleman/2018/11/01/meet-the-entrepreneurs-who-turned-a-bumper-beetroot-crop-into-a-global-export-business/#5f0c0fdf12cf --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, same name but different person. Rocky 734 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Holiday greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; max-width:750px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

Belated holiday greetings. Merry Christmas and happy new year. Thank you for your contribution to the upcoming issue of The Signpost.

↠Pine  ( ✉ )  06:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Odest Chadwicke Jenkins
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wanjira Mathai
Hello! Your submission of Wanjira Mathai 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarice E. Phelps
Thanks for writing biographies about women scientists! Jeblad (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories at Ingrid Waldron
Please don't forget to add categories to your contributions. You can check WP:UNCAT to learn more about why categories are important and how to add them properly. Good luck with your edits! --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for KC Claffy
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Miriam Salpeter
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cassie Kozyrkov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountain View ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cassie_Kozyrkov check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cassie_Kozyrkov?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Lisa Ainsworth
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Congrats
Jess, just wanted to extend my congratulations on the recent award. Well done. Also—- it might be useful if you looked into archiving your page. I had to scroll down quite a bit to post this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Symmachus Auxiliarus! Thanks for the heads up. I worked out how and managed to create an archive.:-)Jesswade88 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Carole Ann Haswell
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)