User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 38

Thank you so much for participating in Translating Ibero-America!
--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear pagestalkers
Dear pagestalkers: happy to let you know that I am 1 of 5 women shortlisted for the 2016 ITU/UN Women GEM-TECH award in the category "Apply Technology for Women’s Empowerment and Digital Inclusion". --Rosiestep (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats, and well deserved! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's wonderful!!  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 04:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Very, very cool Rosie. Congratulations! SusunW (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations to you! MWright96 (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

100wikidays
Hi Rosie, and congratulations on completing your 100wikidays with the 100 articles listed here. Quite a demanding experience, I imagine. While from time to time I may well have averaged 100 new articles over the same period, I would never be able to post a new one each day as I frequently do not have internet access when I am travelling or am completely tied up with other assignments. Although some of you articles are just short stubs, most are really well developed, often contributing to WiR's coverage of women's biographies. (With just a little more work, some might even be close to promotion to GA.) I realize that one of the reasons you have not always been in a position to take part promptly in some of the recent WiR discussions is that you have had to devote much of your wiki time to writing these articles (in addition to conference planning, etc.). Now that you have successfully completed the assignment, I hope you will be able to devote more time to WiR. As we all value your views as WiR's co-founder (together with ) and current coordinator, I think it is important for us to be able to benefit from your views, particularly in regard to future planning. I for one have found it increasingly difficult to follow the reasoning behind some of your recent suggestions. In the absence of responses, in September there was some confusion about our participation in the Nigerian Wiki Loves Women work (probably with a less than satisfactory conclusion) and now there appears to be a need for us to have more background on the reasons why you think it is so important for us to launch a full WiR editathon in connection with the November Wikipedia Asian Month. I very much hope we can restore the extremely fruitful level of discussion we have enjoyed since the project began, in the hope that we can develop an effective approach to ensuring wider participation and overall success at a time when the project appears to be facing new challenges.--Ipigott (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you! :)  Towards the latter part of October, I should be back to more normal wiki engagement. This is after I return from the conference, my home gets packed up, escrow closes, I move back to northern California, and I retire. "Asian women" will be a nice event. Obviously, editors don't have to participate in all WiR events. Maybe we'll get new participants because we're offering something quite broad. Two things are key to an event's success: Wikidata-generated redlists and invitations. Sorry for brevity but I'm drowning with other stuff I have to attend to before I leave for work. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear things will become more settled by the end of the month when you relocate to northern California. It should be far more pleasant than Las Vegas which has never appealed to me. I agree that editors do not need to participate in all the events but preparations for each editathon take up considerable time, especially identifying who outside our main list might be interested in participating. As you have probably been able to gather, I am not too keen on a completely open WiR editathon on Women in Asia. As with all our other editathons, I think the secret of our success lies in encouraging people to focus on one aspect. That's why I think it would be useful to try to concentrate on Women Writers in Asia (which would fit in nicely with our existing priorities). People who want to contribute on other aspects will always be able to join the main WAM contest as they did last year. Any contributions on women will be included in the metrics for the month. I fully agree with you on the red links. While we could perhaps assist with WAM by developing red links on women in the main Asian countries, it might be better to develop a comprehensive world list of Women Writers based on Wikidata as well as on our own research. As English is also used as a communication language in all the Commonwealth countries of Asia, there should be some important names. It's also going to be quite challenging to develop lists of red links for Women in Food and Drink. So it looks as if our preparatory work is already pretty extensive.--Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You'll be pleased to hear I've created Wikidata lists of redlinks of women in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan. All are quite extensive except for Pakistan. might also be interested in these.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * These are great, . Really appreciate that you created these lists. As I said before, WiR will be as well known for the redlists it curates as for the articles it creates. #welldone! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You managed it. Very well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now created all the Asian lists I intend to do. There are now 28 as you can see here. Apart from Kuwait, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka, they all contain the names of interesting women. I've looked at the remaining Asian countries but they're not worth bothering with. In connection with Asian month, it might be worthwhile communicating them to the relevant WikiProjects.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work on the lists, ! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - awesome! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rosie! Q's about reliable references and first hand research!
Hi Rosie! I'm making sure I can get connected to your talk page! It's been very nice to meet you here in SD Wiki conference! Rosie, I also have a question: what are my options when I cannot find a lot of published references from reliable info archives online or in US libraries on certain topics? Maybe I can talk to experts in the field and collect oral accounts and record information from their expertise! Are there ways to use such records as references? Could you refer me to options I have for when information can be obtained primarily through first hand research? I hope you do not mind my asking questions from you :-) thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgho12345 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rosie! Q's about reliable references and first hand research!Mgho12345 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rosie! I'm making sure I can get connected to your talk page! It's been very nice to meet you here in SD Wiki conference! Rosie, I also have a question: what are my options when I cannot find a lot of published references from reliable info archives online or in US libraries on certain topics? Maybe I can talk to experts in the field and collect oral accounts and record information from their expertise! Are there ways to use such records as references? Could you refer me to options I have for when information can be obtained primarily through first hand research? I hope you do not mind my asking questions from you :-) thank you!Mgho12345 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm what we call a page watcher in WP lingo. I watch Rosie's page, as do others, for interesting conversations or things I might help with or need more information on. WP rules do not allow you to use primary source materials in the manner you suggest. If experts publish in secondary sources their expertise, we can use it, but primary sources are not, for the most part, acceptable for documenting a Wiki article. For example, a scientist's article on their own theories/research would not be acceptable as a citation for WP, but a critical review by another expert of the scientist's work would be acceptable. Knowing which sources are likely to cover your topic of interest also helps. Working with historical women, is especially hard, because they and their works were often ignored by publishers. Newspapers are an invaluable source for finding these, but usually they require a subscription to attain archival records. The [WP Library] has references available to assist with subscriptions or research. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's great to see we have an interesting new user from San Diego who can already post messages on talk pages. Like Susun, I just happened to see your query here. I know that beginners sometimes experience considerable difficulty in finding appropriate sources to back their articles. For that reason, it may be a good idea to use your sandbox to experiment with your first attempts. We will then be able to see what you are doing and try to help you along. You could also look at our Women in Red project which might provide you with some ideas. Just drop me a line if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - I was so happy to meet you, and glad you've become a Wikipedian! Hope to see you again at another event. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Mary Chase Walker at DYK
Hello! Your submission of Mary Chase Walker 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! Espresso Addict (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

New article on Grace Hall Hemingway
Dear Rosie (and ), I created an article stub about Grace Hall Hemingway today, based on the equivalent article already available at the German Wiki: Grace Hall Hemingway. I translated it and also tried to add value by creating an infobox, expanding the prose, and adding a few more refs (for now) and categories I thought appropriate. The authority control links were already correct and I tested them, although I had to remove the German one ('GND=') which did not seem to work (at least for me). I hope this will fit in nicely with your own project(s), as she was also an active member of her local suffragette movement! With kindest regards to you both, as ever; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice article,, and I removed the stub tag. Thank you for mentioning it. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Very many thanks for your blisteringly efficient review, supportive action, and speedy reply! I remain most grateful to you for your continued assistance. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge? user group update
'''Hi Rosie! Thanks for joining the Whose Knowledge user group - we’re so glad to have you involved!'''

Here are some updates about recent activities:


 * User group approved: Our user group was officially approved in October - hooray! Big thanks to Raystorm and FloNight for the idea to create a user group for the Whose Knowledge? campaign :)
 * Mapping feminist knowledge at AWID's 2016 Forum: Interested in learning more about what we’ve been doing lately? Read our blog post on what we learned from mapping feminist knowledge at Association for Women's Rights in Developments 2016 Forum.
 * New grant proposal:
 * We’ve proposed a WMF project grant. It would be great to have your feedback and/or endorsement by November 1 if this project interests you!
 * It would also be great to have your help notifying communities already working on systemic bias about this proposal. Here is a draft message to use if you'd like - please translate, change as you see fit for your own context, and share in any communities you’re active in on and off-wiki!

Looking forward to doing more together very soon! Siko (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month
You'll be pleased to see, Rosie, that has created Wikipedia Asian Month/2016 WiR. I'll try to expand it with lists of redlinks, etc. When I've finished, I'll include appropriate announcements. I suggest the November editathon invitations should include women in food and drink and women writers with an additional line on WAM. Please let me know whether you agree with that approach as I remember you were once thinking of three fully-fledged editathons. Personally, I think the current WAM page with the necessary links to the contest pages is a more sensible option. It will avoid a lot of duplication. I've put together a draft invitation covering all three items here.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I love the approach and the invitation. I think we also need a WiR meetup page (#28) for Asian month which redirects to Wikipedia Asian Month/2016 WiR as an event tracking mechanism. I can MassMessage over the weekend but have spotty wifi right now. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I can create an editathon page as a formality but I think it should basically be a redirect to the page AddisWang has created. I know you've been tied up with all kinds of other things for the past couple of weeks but our WiR editathon page for the Nigerian entertainers was not really a success. The Nigerians have announced further contests between now and the end of the year but given their rather closed approach, I am not too keen on promoting their contests on WiR. has not been at all happy with the arrangement either. I think we are still hoping for a more collaborative approach with clear support fromWikiLovesWomen. This could perhaps be engineered in liaison with 's destubbing exercise on Africa which now makes special provision for new articles on women.--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We're also accepting new articles on African women too, but no stubs, have to be minimum 1.5 kb prose.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point Dr B and all up for Asian Month. The Nigerian project finished today. Dr B had a good go at it and I loaded lots of new pix but I don't think they understand the years of experience we have at running editathons. They may discover an even better way. They have IMO a strong loyalty to wikiloveswomen. Ive been chatting with Dr B. Our editathons have been working well renewing our enthusiasm each month but we need to think of doing something (much) bigger to refocus. The tricky bit is working out how to do it without overstretching our admin overhead even more. Our growing links with other languages I think is the key. Ian has been showing that we are continuing to move the needle but its moving v.slowly. Victuallers (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm ?????? I just looked at the scope of the user page - it says writing about Asian countries, I presume that is going to be notable Asian women when corrected? Victuallers (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

On the wider question of how to make more rapid progress on the proportion of articles about women on the EN Wikipedia, I have made a number of suggestions on various talk pages. Unfortunately, there are so many discussions going on at the moment that many of the points seem to be drowned by new threads. Let me relist my ideas here: If anyone is interested in helping with any of these, we could no doubt begin working on them fairly soon.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you are referring to Wikipedia Asian Month. The page was drafted by who is not a native English speaker. I think what he means is "articles relating to Asian countries" in the widest sense. They can cover geography, people, culture, history, religion, etc., providing articles are not about your own country or people living there.
 * 1) Closer contacts with the other language wikis which are progressing more quickly than we are on women's biographies. Overall that would include Korean and Japanese and for Europe Norwegian and Swedish. We might be able to get some good advice from them.
 * 2) Intensify our country focus. Through his drives and challenges, Dr. Blofeld has demonstrated how country-based initiatives can attract interest. We could no doubt do the same for women, possibly in liaison with the other languages. I suggest we could start with France, Germany, Spain and some of the larger Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico). In this connection, was quite successful in encouraging English/French collaboration on the French-speaking North-African countries.
 * 3) Consider drawing on Wikidata to automate the creation of draft stubs on the basis of the details on women in different occupations. Wikidata often contains a brief description, dates and places of birth and death, nationality, occupation(s) and images. It should not be difficult to create a framework for these to be inserted in an English-language textual framework with appropriate categories and name sorting. The automatic draft could then be expanded to at least a few lines by an editor/article creator. After a bit of practice, I would guess an experienced editor could handle five or six of these per hour.
 * 4) Last but not least, I think we should be givingn far more attention to how we can recruit and keep women editors. I have always considered this a top priority but most WiR participants seem to be more interested in writing articles. I think we could achieve far more by working through schools and colleges.


 * I think it's fair to say that we've come a long way, and there's a lot more work to do!! All of these ideas have merit but you are right, sometimes ideas get lost in a sea of other talkpage posts. This is why I recommend we also communicate orally via semi-regularly-scheduled calls, 1 Saturday/month, Skype or Google hangout, with a pre-established agenda so that we stay on track and limit the time commitment to say 30-60 minutes. I'm available this Saturday at 8AM or 9AM PDT if that works for anyone else. If we're on for this Saturday, I would suggest we work on the Asian women editathon and how to promote this one across multiple languages. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * On the Asian front, I have already notified all the WikiProjects for Asian countries. I would suggest key players in WAM such as could now simply be encouraged to notify the other participating countries that focus on women is being implemented for English this year and could be extended across the board (i.e. for all the languages specifically represented).
 * On improving our impact, maybe it would also help to have a WiR page dedicated to suggestions for improving the effectiveness of WiR (i.e. how to increase the proportion of women's biographies and related articles on the EN Wikipedia). That would allow everyone to come up with ideas and ways and means of implementing them. I would guess that just this month, around a dozen different editors have been making useful suggestions on a variety of topics. We could create it as WikiProject Women in Red/Impact. It could serve as a basis for developing other pages on specific topics such as WikiProject Women in Red/Impact/Attracting new editors--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian, I'd be happy to use your ideas as the basis of a discussion page. I like all of them. (Although I'm not an enthusiast for especially focussing on women editors. I don't object of course but the problem is too large to be fussy about those who want to fix the problem.) However I do feel strongly about the "atmosphere" of our project. We do not at present have an editor who is being disruptive or rude but we need to sanction anyone who spoils this project and supportive of victims. I do think chatting on Skype can be useful to deal with person to person issues that can build up overtime. I respect anyone who feels that they dont want to ... and we need to make sure that decisions are not being made de facto offline. On the subject of stub creation. I just gave a barnstar to Sander.v.Ginkel who is doing a good job. S/he could "the engine" of an editathon. S/he is trying dozens of women footballer biogs. These will have a positive effect on this months figures - we could agree that we would try and de-stub them after creation. I'm trying to encourage this in a vague way via tweets to footballer groups. Nuff said. Victuallers (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roger, for your words of support. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to put some ideas together with some of the views already expressed by our participants. I understand your views on women editors and have to agree with you that most of the innovative ideas about how to address the problem of improving the coverage of women and their works have indeed come from men, including your own great proposal on "picking up more women" (now Women in Red). has also helped things along by providing for synergy between all the WikiProjects on women and presenting the case for more attention to quality improvement. And most of the technical support has been from male editors too. On the other hand, I must say that in my professional work in the EU, I came to realize how important it was for women to participate in taking things forward in the area of GLAM and multilingual internet services. Some of the greatest achievements in Europe (such as the development of Europeana and the management of Europe's national libraries) clearly demonstrate how effective women can be. In my opinion, one of the major problems with the EN Wikipedia is that the vast majority of contributors are male. Men naturally want to write about men and are far more interested in topics such as military history, soccer, and politics, in which men have always played a leading role. I am convinced that if we succeed in encouraging more women to contribute to Wikipedia, we will see a significant development of fields in which women have excelled historically as well as in their recent impact in virtually every field of human endeavor. That is why I think it is vital for us to see how we can encourage more women to join Wikipedia as editors, not just for a few hours during an editathon but for the longer term.--Ipigott (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Back to WAM
I've been trying to help this along, Rosie. I already have a very positive response from Taiwan. I'm looking out for people in the Asian countries as they commit to WAM and will encourage them to join us in focusing on women. In this connection, it would be useful if you could share any outcomes of your phone discussions.--Ipigott (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

WiR /Tasks
fwiw, Rosiestep, this doesn"t work for me. It isn't a great burden to maintain two lists, and I very much feel that the project page should list its assets in a more upfront way than hoping users will grok the template. Would you please reconsider. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with . I think people need to be able to see our redlink lists clearly displayed on the main WiR page. I went ahead and restored them as they are in fact richer than those in the template with info on length and how main lists also relate to more specific lists. (PS - don't forget to send out the November editathon invitations by mass messaging. Many of our participants may wish to start preparing now and some might want to register early for WAM.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I think we could improve the main page further by replacing the clickable "Tasks" icon by either "Missing articles" or "Red links". We could then provide a direct link to "Redlink lists" after deleting the "Tasks" section. The few lines we now have in the "Tasks" section duplicate the information in the main introduction and the items under "Events". If you agree, you should alert Harej and his team as these changes will need assistance from Project X.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Barnstar

 * Congratulations from me too. It was amazing you could keep up with this with all your involvement in conferences, etc. Now we just need another hundred like you and we can meet Dr. Blofeld's goal of reaching 20% women's biographies over the next two years.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done Rosie Victuallers (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to "target countries" discussion
Hello, Rosiestep! Since you facilitated the Global South meeting at Wikimania 2016, we're inviting you to a discussion on "target countries". You can help the product team at the Wikimedia Foundation create a new list of countries and metrics to replace the "global south" concept in our process with something more relevant. Interested? Learn more about this discussion and share your perspective. (This message is available in more languages.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Every country should be a target country and there is a way to stage something so you get women articles created fairly evenly on every country! But for starters we'll need the missing lists to extend to every country worldwide..♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

100wikidays barnstar

 * Thanks, . I really appreciate this barnstar. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

An award for you

 * OMG,, that is so funny! Thank you; love it! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL. I know how much it means to you to be back home, so wishing you all the best!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Portland riot
It may surprise you to learn that I have joined the "WikiProject Donald Trump". Although I opposed him in the election, I feel my stance can act somewhat as a "counter balance" there, although my edits will be fair, and will be written from a neutral point of view. Toward that end, I created the article 2016 Portland riot today, since to date it has been the most violent protest to Trump's election. If you have time, I would appreciate your feedback, and/or participation. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I took one look at the article and it grabbed my attention with the word "anarchists", as women anarchists have been the subject of many biographies I've created this year. That said, thanks for starting the article, and let me see if I can find anything to add. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, cool! I put "anarchists" in quotation marks, because I was quoting the reference. Thanks for all you do! :) Juneau Mike (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The 50,000 Challenge
Wouldn't you know it. Just as I stuck Discouraged on my user page, more due to a lack of a better descriptor for my feelings than anything else, this challenge comes along. I'm always up for a challenge, but the sort of agenda-pushing or indiscriminate content dumping I've been witnessing as of late is hardly anything one can call a challenge. Anyway, I see that you've signed up for the Alaska portion. I also see that Mike is still corresponding with you. I'll ping, and , who also do a lot of work on Alaska topics. There's three choices here: should Alaska remain part of the general United States challenge, be a part of the Pacific Northwest challenge or try for a state-specific challenge ala what California, New York and North Carolina are currently doing? I've been slowly working on a requested articles subpage for WP:ALASKA, but like many such pages, it isn't necessarily resulting in articles getting written. I've also worked on this and that offline, mainly because the AFC crowd has this WP:OWN thing about content in draftspace and even in userspaces, and that they appear more interested in tearing down the work of others than in doing any work themselves.

Specific to any of your efforts, Rosie: I started the Alaska portion of the challenge by creating Stan Cornelius after looking for a topic in line with my interests which wasn't strictly one-dimensional, unlike so many other legislator biographies I've seen. I've noticed a lot of pissing and moaning on this page from various editors about the lack of progress in covering notable women. There's an entire laundry list of women legislators in Alaska, spanning well over a half century, who lack articles. Do you need any help with that? I started a list somewhere of articles needing to be written and can cobble together some source material when I make it back to the library, because I had to throw my own copies of what I have into storage recently. Also, I just noticed Mildred Stratton Wilson, which briefly mentions an affiliation with the Institute of Marine Science at UAF. Vera Alexander, who led the institute for many years, may appear to be an obscure topic on the surface. However, her stature within the scientific community at UAF is on a par with the likes of Laurence Irving and Syun-Ichi Akasofu. I believe she was also the first woman to earn a doctorate from UAF. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi so glad to hear from you. My primary interests with Alaska are geography and 19th-century people/companies/events. I'm not saying that the topics you mention aren't interesting to me, too, it's just that I prefer to research and create content about obscure stuff covered long ago in PD-era books. It makes me feel like a "miner", mining for something which was notable long ago and is all but forgotten today. Do you want to work on any of that with me? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding so many new articles to the challenge's list, Rosie! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing, . Just dawned on me to do so. I've been in a bit of a bubble this month and it wasn't until now that it dawned on me to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Found a potentially-useful resource
Here. On African women writers. Looks like it could be useful to me - what do you think? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think it is an extremely useful site. Good find. Do you have thoughts on how to capture the names into a redlist? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not offhand, beyond manual work. I've found a couple of them on other redlink lists, though. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Women in Red/French speaking African authors All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC).

Another potentially-useful resource
The same site I linked you to earlier has a list of Lusophone women writers: here. No biographical information, but there appears to be a good bit of stuff to burrow through. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding it, . Adding in . Lots of good information here, but I don't know any easy way for turning it (and the earlier list) into a relist(s). Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't know, sorry. But a cursory search on a couple of 'em reveals at least some biographical information elsewhere online, so there is some stuff that can be filled out.  (I'll maybe hit one or two on my lunch break, if I can manage it.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding in ; and thank you, Rich, for creating the Francophone list! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Any time. I managed to create  and  out of it.  And this one looks like it will support the creation of  as well.  (I'll try that one at lunch.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - re: the Francophone list Rich created, do you think we should add it to the WiR template "as is" vs. renaming or reshuffling by nationality? If renaming, perhaps something like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/French-language writers in Africa" or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/African writers in French"... per some of what I see here: . I'll wait to add it to the WiR template till we sort the name out. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I usually like to break redlists down by country. However, my major reason for wanting country breakdowns are for 2 reasons. 1) That way editors can target countries they wish (maybe they want to contribute because of ties to that country or they want to tackle content gaps) and 2) It helps identify the major language an editor might be dealing with. Since the language is already French for all of the countries, that takes care of the language that I have. As for the first issue, I'd be happy to break it up if everyone feels that's necessary. :) As for the name, I like French-language writers because that's easier to understand. I didn't know what Francophone was at first either... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , should we merge them here, and then start sorting by country? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be super, . I'll merge them into that list and then we can sort out by country. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to split it up between poets and playwrights, too, as applicable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And a third
Since we're talking. :-) Here you go. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add those, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

James Dale Ritchie
Hi Rosie. You and I collaborated on the Israel Keyes (serial killer) page. Another case out of Anchorage seems rising to notability standards. A man who tried to kill an Anchorage Police officer last Saturday, and died during the gun battle, had a gun on him that was used to kill five people in Anchorage this year. All five cases have been unsolved. Some of the murdered folks appear to be victims of random violence. If these murders are tied to the man, James Dale Ritchie, then he would appear to meet notability guidelines for a serial or spree killer page here on Wikipedia. (We aren't there yet, he hasn't been definitively tied to the killings yet...) Here are some articles for research: (KTUU-TV) and (Alaska Dispatch News) Juneau Mike (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Beeblebrox, one of numerous things I didn't quite have the time to continue to argue about. ADN is making a big deal out of it right this moment.  Based on that, it might rise to the level of something notable, but it's still just another news story.  As usual, it sends the message that it's notable because it happened in 2016, and that any number of other crimes aren't notable because they're not currently making headlines.  That Tom Faccio's murder launched the victim's rights movement in Alaska and that his murderer gave birth to two children while serving a lengthy prison sentence is not important, you say?  Hmmm... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil: the editor who started the thread on Beeblebrox's page went back to it at the same time I wrote the above. Sorry, Mike, but I was joking to myself a while back that I had to stop listening to Alaska News Nightly because what I was hearing on that program every night and my patrol for new Alaska articles started to look like one and the same. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about this one. Trying to reduce my stress level in November, so I'll keep an eye on on it peripherally but I won't jump in at the moment. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear ya, Rosie! As I stated in my original note to you, it hasn't been determined that James Ritchie did this for sure yet. I can understand taking stress out of your life, take a well deserved break! :) Juneau Mike (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Susannah Oland
I need help moving an article. It won't let me do it because there is a redirect and says I need an admin. The article is here User talk:SusunW/Sandbox draft 1 and needs to be moved to Susannah Oland. I was amazed there was no article about her. Can you or possibly help me? (Actually, I'd be happy with help from any admin who can do it. I think the redirect has to be deleted and then the new article transferred, but heck, it's technology, what do I know?) I can finish with the gnoming stuff once it's moved, if someone will just ping me. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, ! I deleted Susannah Oland. You can move an article into that space now. I would have done it myself but I didn't see it at User talk:SusunW/Sandbox draft 1. Maybe it's elsewhere? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahhh ummm,, and now there's an article in that spot! Nothing short of techno magic! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * moved it. Thank you both. :)
 * I beat Rosie by a few seconds :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 👍 Thank you, . --Rosiestep (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, homework is done, I did the dishes, lunches are made, kids are in bed. Susun, what did you want me to do? :) Drmies (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nada, but thanks . I got tons of help and my article got moved. :) SusunW (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Pick your brain?
Greetings! I was referred to you by Wiki NYC members as someone I should contact in regards to the vision my collaborator and I have for our initiative, Black Lunch Table. We have been hosting and training editathons around the country for a little over a year and have been thinking about the best way to grow the project. I love what your doing with your project Women in Red. I just thought I'd reach out so we are connected. Thanks so much for your work! --Heathart (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for connecting with me. Looks like BLT is doing some interesting stuff. If you have the time and inclination, we could do a Google Hangout or Skype. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes please ! Should we shoot for after Thanksgiving? Maybe the week of Dec 10? I am leaving town for two weeks and likely will be absent minded until I get back home to work mode.--Heathart (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that works for me. Note, I'm out of town till Dec 13. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you for very much, . --Rosiestep (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge
Thinking of setting up WikiProject Papua New Guinea/The Cultural Anthropologist's Challenge as a sub one, what do you reckon ;-) If you feel like doing some PNG articles to start it off go for it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Between WiR's women writers and your US 50,000 Challenge, my dance card is full for the month of November. But starting Dec 1st... --Rosiestep (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha I was half kidding but if you would like to do a mini Cultural Anthropologist's challenge to start an article for every province of PNG or something we can do it ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bat-Sheva Dagan
Hi, I created this article for the Women Writers Editathon, but am unable to fix the Polish-name link to this page at WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Israel because the ListeriaBot automatically overrides my change when it updates. Is there any way to delete Batszewa Dagan entirely so someone else doesn't start creating it by mistake? (It's showing as a blue link here because it's redirecting to Bat-Sheva Dagan.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for creating the article. I think the reason for the linking problem is that there are two Wikidata items for this woman. This one (Q7188619) links to her Polish and Hebrew language articles, while this one (Q27889479) links to her en-wiki article. I think the solution is to delete the newer Wikidata item, Q27889479, and add the en-wiki article link to Q7188619. Then Ms. Dagan will no longer appear as a redlink on the Listeria list, and we can delete the en-wiki redirect. I'm copying in  to see if she agrees with this approach, and if so, if she'll handle the Wikidata fix. Of course, if there are Wikidata pagestalkers lurking, would welcome your opinion/assistance. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. For future reference, in Wikidata there is an editting tab for "More" and then you select "Merge". Always go to the newer item (one with the higher number), there select the Merge function, and choose the lower number to merge into. Very easy once you do it a few times. ~This happens quite often. Jane (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . But she is still appearing as a red-linked "Batszewa Dagan" on WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Israel. Yoninah (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because I just merged the item, but the list has not been updated. If you press the button "Automatically update the list now" to update the list too soon, any changes won't show, so give it some time and then update the list. If it still shows red tomorrow then maybe there's a third item hanging out there somewhere! Jane (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This got me thinking, and I'm going to suggest "women prisoners and detainees" for one of the edit-a-thons. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By coincidence, I just made a start on Churan Zheng. With these Chinese women, I never know whether to use the Chinese form (i.e. Zheng Churan with the family name first) or the westernized form like the BBC. Any advice? According to this we should adopt the Chinese form but are we in the business of correcting the BBC? (cc ) --Ipigott (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , in general, I support Wikipedia's naming conventions across the board; and then redirects are helpful for alt forms of someone's name. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll stick with the Chinese model with redirects to the BBC names. How about all the Chinese names from previous years? Should the main articles be moved too or should we just make redirects from the preferred Wikipedia form? In cases where there are already redirects, they will have to be handled by an administrator.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation for WiR 30, 31 & 32
I've prepared an Invitation, editathon pages and Wikidata lists. Please check everything out as it has all entailed quite a bit of copying and pasting. It would be good if the invitation could be mass messaged soon as it also announces the BBC coverage which has already started. Let me know if anything else needs to be done.--Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

 * +1 --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Challenges
Hi, The 1000 Challenge (Turkey) would be very grateful if you put any articles you've done up as it's usually the same people doing all the work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if you have time or interest in Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Podgorica, some sources might be in Serbian.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, . I have interest but zero time at the moment because of focus on logistics issues, multiple continents, for the December 8th BBC 100 Women edit-a-thons. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah don't worry!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semra Ertan
Hi, I'd like to nominate this for DYK. OK with you? Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sure, and thank you. DYK doesn't seem kind or friendly anymore, so I've avoided it for awhile. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC editathon
Hey - do you know who's running this? Question came up from on IRC. Katietalk 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - It's being organized by BBC, WMF, and WMUK.  Planning committee includes: Maria Cruz (WMF), Lucy Crompton-Reid (chief executive WMUK), Ahmen Khawaja (BBC producer), plus me. There are edit-a-thon nodes all over the world who'll be participating on Thursday. Could use some assistance with the article associated with the campaign. Please let me know if you have any other questions? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:BBC 100 Women has been nominated for discussion
Category:BBC 100 Women, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Woot! You're a BBC author! SusunW (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful achievement!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, . :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done. And well said. I find more missing names faster than I can write articles and by the looks of the growing lists of names that is true for everyone here. But we are working on those lists and with articles like this to attract people to write, we will blue link them all and find more to write.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 02:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, . --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women editathon and article creation
Hi Rosie, I'm sure you'll pick up the message on the WikiProject talk page, but leaving you this note as well as I've been posting it to a few talk pages. As you created an article on this list (the 160+ articles created on the day of the BBC 100 Women editathon), can you take a look and help out, or add any articles you know that were created that might be missing? Thanks. (Technically, the article was the day before, but it is still there in the upper section.) Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and thanks for notifying me. I'm on it! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They are still coming in and will continue to do so over the next few days as the BBC broadcasts continue. I'll do what I can to tidy up as many up as possible, and  have been helping me to compile a list for 8 December on our editathon page. They have been doing a great job adding notes on what needs to be done on each of them. It looks to me as if we could also compile similar lists for at least the 9th and 10th. If and when I have time, I'll also try to put together a list of new editors who have created women's biographies. There are certainly many more who have edited existing articles but these are too difficult to identify at this stage. I'll then try to contact them on their user pages and encourage them to join WiR. Did you keep a list of newbies from Washington?--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Chase Walker
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again
Could you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force or the linked meta page? It seems to me that there should be some sort of reply or reaction to the Board's announcement. This could be a real opportunity. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the discussion there is open to everyone, so I'll just post my comments here. I am not in favor of "separate but equal" as a general rule. But that being said, in this environment, there is very little ability to change set-in policy to be more inclusive because the group of very vocal voices against change are entrenched. What is odd, is that because each group tends to focus only on their specific "cause" you have those various entrenched groups in each area—creation, policy, deletion, admin, etc.—with each not realizing how the project as a whole is effected. Bottom-up management has not made WP a more inclusive place, instead it has made it a more rigid place. It seems apparent to me, that for real change to be made, it will need to be a top-down implementation, which I am not sure would ever happen.


 * One of the biggest barriers to addressing the gender gap is the type of coverage sources give. But the powers that be, refuse to recognize that. I can best explain it by an example. Several days ago, I did a search to see how many articles for a well known man or woman it takes to create a biographical piece. I put in 2 names with no identifying characteristics: Gloria Allred and Geoffrey Robertson. For him, the very first link I pulled up gave a fairly complete bio: (Surprisingly it does actually mention is personal life, though many articles on WP leave out family information on men's bios entirely) For her, the first five links had merely snippets in a bunch of articles, most of which focus on her work, her celebrity clients, her activism and a lot to do with Donald Trump. Little to do with her life, so I modified the search to Gloria Allred, biography. Weeding out the non-notable IMDB, and fan sites, I came up with her age, she went to high school (where?), she went to Loyola Law School in the 1970s, she went to University of Pennsylvania, she married twice; her age, she is a feminist, interested in politics, in 1966 she was working as a teacher, she was born in Philadelphia, she went to the University of Pennsylvania, she married twice. As is easily seen, multiple articles are needed to even create a biography. Imagine on someone not as famous, how many links one must pull up to complete a biography for a woman? Which is why, in article after article, the question comes up about sources being more about their work/their cause being more important than the woman behind the cause,, articles which namecheck a woman in a list of other discussion,, whether the selective criteria or GNG is applicable, , , etc. Unless and until we figure out a way to adequately address that sources for men and women are different, we will never address the systemic inequality of a gender gap. Just my opinion. SusunW (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with your opinion, . --Rosiestep (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rosie. As I said, I didn't post it to ' link, because I was unclear if it was a call for general input or only specific people to input. If appropriate, it can be shared there. SusunW (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think all thoughtful opinions are welcome on that page. If you're comfortable doing so, cross-posting would be good. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps both and  should start by signing up as WikiWomen (which  set up a few years ago). It seems to be time to revive the whole idea of collaboration between women. While I don't think it would be sensible for women to become dissociated from Wikipedia, it might be interesting to see whether an all-women environment would make for progress on the creation and acceptance of articles. But once articles have been successfully created, they should of course be integrated into the main Wikipedia and that could lead to the wellknown problems.--Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess, Ian, I am of the opinion that making a separate space will solve nothing, as it doesn't address the overall issue *here*. IMO, that will require a policy directive, which has yet to be forthcoming. The self-policing policy is clearly broken and ineffective. Unless and until addressing that is tackled, change will not happen. The best we can do is carve out safe spaces like WiR where we can, carry-on and suck it up, or decide it's too much to deal with. SusunW (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid policing just won't work. You would need to have an army of super-admins who would be accused of bias. But I do think women's pressure groups could assist in solving the problem. I was intrigued by a comment from at the BBC editathon who said the editing environment on smaller wikis such as the one for the Welsh language was much more friendly and completely open towards women. The sheer size of the EN wiki requires more structured administration which leads to all kinds of problems.--Ipigott (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with that, although I think the issues of size are just a part of it. There are also the issues of widely divergent social and political standards across the English speaking world, and, unfortunately, the fact that, so far as I can see, the English wikipedia tends to have the most detailed articles and the most hits from around the world, making the articles here, effectively, in some cases, almost a sort of default "standard". John Carter (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Good idea re get better organized and we're on it but could do more! The WikiWomen's User Group, an approved member of the Affiliates member, is the offshoot of the WikiWomen's Collaborative, and there are similar approved UGs in Spanish (WikiMujeres) and Italian (WikiDonne); I and others have regular conversations with their leaders, e.g. planning BBC 100 Women, etc... likewise with the Art+Feminism UG, as well as with WikiLovesWomen, which is not a non-Affiliate community. Women in Red, IMHO, seems to bridge all of these communities in terms of new article creation, which is just one spoke of the work that everyone is doing, e.g. everyone would also like to see more women editing, improving articles about women, etc.
 * - You bring up some interesting points re smaller wikis and divergent social and political standards. I'm giving the smaller wikis point some thought. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The WikiWomen's user group doesn't seem to be very active unless something is going on being the scenes. I would suggest they might give serious attention to how women editors could be encouraged to become more involved in all aspects of Wikipedia, not just editing and creating articles. Their minority position in a world where women are increasingly gaining status goes against the general trend. I think lessons could be learned from some of the other wikis where efforts appear to be effective in providing a more welcoming environment for women and increasing their coverage in the encyclopaedia. And maybe in parallel, there should be a men's group for those of us who support the cause!--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, as you suspected, a lot goes on behind the scenes. Allies are welcome! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Just spreading a little holiday discomfort here
Regarding missing biographies of women, if anyone wanted to go through them all, a look through the various editions of Biography Index would possibly be able to find several thousands, or more, of missing biographies. In the event anyone out there is a student with nothing to do over the next few weeks but happily go home to family and friends, this might be a way to Scrooge up their vacation. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Let's see if anyone takes you up on the offer. For sure, it won't be me, though.  :)  --Rosiestep (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On a slightly more serious note, wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries contains a lot of works in the PD. It might be possible to find quite a few bios there. John Carter (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Quviahugvik
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Rosiestep: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Adapted from Season's Greetings


 * Thanks,, and cheers to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

 * Thanks,, and cheers to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Festive greetings!
Women in Red logo.svg A barnstar of deep recognition for all your efforts on Women in Red throughout the year. Enjoy the end of year festivities and prepare to put more women on the world map in 2017. --Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)




 * Thank you very much, . This is lovely, and I wish you the same sentiments. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rosie. Feel free to address it to any other well deserving participants I may have forgotten. I've been keeping a list here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

 * Thank you,, and wishing happy holidays to you and yours, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/33
Hi Rosie; I was (pleasantly!) surprised to see a January editathon for Women in Philosophy; as you know, I've been running a drive for women in philosophy since August which is due to end just as yours starts. I'm certainly happy to throw my hat into the ring and contribute to the editathon, but I wondered if you had particular plans to get people involved; while the 2016 drive certainly hasn't been a failure, I wouldn't call it a roaring success, either! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . First, thank you for your multi-month campaign for women in philosophy. Regarding getting people involved in WiR's January event, I know we'll be sending out invitations early next week via MassMessage. may have additional info (am on holiday wikibreak). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are of course welcome to encourage all your contacts to take part in the editathon. If you need any further help, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

 * Thank you,, and wish you a Happy 2017! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

An award for your contributions
(See you at our next event Women in Philosophy online edit-a-thon) Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ; appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas from me! Thanks for your company during 2016. We have seen the percentage of articles on women rise from 15.5% to 16.77%. 20% is within our grasp and that's an increase of nearly a third over what we first found. Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, and Merry Christmas to you, too. I looking forward to continuing this journey with you, every step of the way. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2016
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Tito Dutta (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, and wishing you happy holidays, as well! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Festivus!

 * Thank you, and happy 2017 to you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Twas the Night before Christmas


Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and happy 2017 to you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card

 * Thank you, and happy 2017 to you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, and happy 2017 to you! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings! Rosiestep

 * Thanks, 7&6=thirteen, and happy 2017 to you! --Rosiestep (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Invitations for January
I realize you are taking a short break at the moment. Please just let me know if you would like me to send out the January invitation manually. I can easily devote a half hour or so to it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm back from my wikibreak so I can MassMessage the invitations. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Great. Let's see what we can make of education and philosophy. Plenty of scope for the new year.--Ipigott (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Contributing to The Signpost
Hello Rosiestep, I'm Mz7. I was brought here by, who stated here to contact you to see how to get involved in The Signpost. I would be interested in helping out if needed. Mz7 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thank you for your interest in "The Signpost" and for reaching out to me. "The Signpost" is the English Wikipedia's newspaper, managed by Wikipedia's volunteer community, with a focus on the Wikimedia movement. It has been the subject of academic analysis, has been covered by other newspapers, and its publicly-available archives document the history of Wikipedia. Founded by Michael Snow in January 2005, there have been hundreds of contributors to "The Signpost". Some have written one piece while others have taken on regular roles associated with a newspaper. I'll email you shortly to continue the conversation; cc: . --Rosiestep (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've responded by email. Mz7 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion nomination of Oliver Fellows Tomkins


A tag has been placed on Oliver Fellows Tomkins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. United States Man (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * it's PD content with source attribution. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've supported the idea of deletion on the page's talk page.Bmcln1 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well,, you might slow down with your assessment and give a seasoned editor (e.g. >4,200 new articles) some time (e.g. 1 hour) to flesh out an article on a notable person. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, Rosie. I see now you're still at it. It read very strangely an hour ago but seems to be shaping up. How did you come across him? Tactically speaking, it would be worth putting something more in the lead. I don't think that being a British foreign missionary in the late 19th century alone is going to satisfy the editor who's made this proposal, as there were so many of them. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Best, Brian


 * Hi, I've been working on Goaribari Island for a long time, and he's part of its history. Figured today was as good a day as any to work on his bio. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Goaribari page is interesting. I see Tomkins was among several who were murdered and eaten by cannibals there in 1901. Could his martyrdom appear in the lead, do you think? Bmcln1 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Good idea, . Can you please expand the lede? Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just added "a violent death" for now. I was thinking that few missionaries were being murdered by that time and it might be possible to claim him as one of the last, but not so. For instance, a couple of dozen Catholic missionaries were murdered in the Matabeleland province of Zimbabwe (then still Rhodesia) as late as 1976 and 1977. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Makes me wonder if Tomkins and Chalmers were the last missionaries to be cannibalized? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Could be. Interesting to see that Japanese troops in New Guinea were accused after the Second World War of cannibalism during their occupation. See List of incidents of cannibalism, to which Chalmers and Tomkins might be added, by the way. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Added mention on that list page; good find. And BTW, thanks for expanding the lede, and making any additional improvements. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Semra Ertan
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy 2017
--Camelia (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you,, and to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)