User talk:Rustavo

Multiple Stubbing
What's wrong with triple-stubbing?

I don't think there's an absolute rule, but generally an article shouldn't be marked with multiple stub tags from the same general category - recently I've been restubbing a lot of articles marked with medicine-stub or the generally overused med-sign-stub to more specific subcategory stubs as listed on WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. When I find articles marked with multiple subcategory stubs within medicine, I sometimes remove less specific ones. There's nothing wrong with putting them back though if you feel strongly that it's helpful to have a particular stub listed in multiple subcategories. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks.)

A sense of futility
Ever feel like no matter how many times you roll the rock up the hill, it's gonna end up back at the bottom? Or is that just my pro-Big Brother mentality? MastCell Talk 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think it is time to ask for mediation. I've never done it though, and I'm not sure it will help. -Rustavo 02:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Option B (which I advocated to User:Dr.michael.benjamin) is to disengage for awhile, let him go to town, and then look at the finished product in a week or two to see what needs to be done to fix it. He obviously has more time on his hands and is a single-purpose editor, so trying to keep up with dozens of edits every hour is not really productive for those of us with other interests in the encyclopedia. Easier said than done of course. Mediation is not a bad idea either, and I'd gladly sign on. MastCell Talk 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we tried the waiting thing before, and after a few weeks he came back. We'd put a lot of work into incorporating the more valid parts of his reasoning into a well balanced criticism section, and he wiped it all out. He seems intent on replacing the basic structure of the whole section with a libertarian laundry list, and I'm afraid if we gave him a week at this point, the only feasible "fix" would be a complete revert or rewrite. I'm looking forward to writing a section that gives a fair account of the important FDA reforms and controversies of the past 10 years, but I don't want to see it all hacked up with gibberish. Obviously the fix-as-he-goes-along strategy is wasting my time though, and is probably counterproductive in getting him to move on - plus now he just straight up reverts my editing as soon as I do it. I say we give him a week alone with the criticism section before asking for mediation. We can use the "before" and "after" in making our case. -Rustavo 03:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Generic update: the criticism stuff just got forked into Criticism of the FDA. // 3R1C 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you
Thanks for your feedback on the cerebral hypoxia article. I wasn't quite sure of how to use the pubmed citation format. Egfrank 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just looked at the documentation on the citation template - it is a bit intimidating. I wonder if you might be able to fix one of the pub-med cites so I have an example to go by - or give me a link to an article with one.  Many thanks, Egfrank 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to do it is to use the Wikicite program - just enter the PubMed ID and it automatically fills out the template for you. -Rustavo 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious development
So it turns out that our good "libertarian" friend User:Regulations is a sock puppet of User:Billy Ego, a proud self-proclaimed fascist who has just been banned by the Arbitration Committee. In light of this curious development, shall we re-examine the FDA articles? I'd propose deleting the criticism article as a POV fork, restoring a criticism section to the main article, and whittling it down in a manner that reflects Wikipedia's policies. What do you think? MastCell Talk 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. -Rustavo 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pathology
Yes, it was a bit of a resolution issue with the TOC, plus I don't see how that one small element can affect GA. ~  Giggy!  TalkContribs 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed on the last part, I just meant that the previous version looked OK to a reviewer as well as myself. I personally don't like a lot of blank space on the page. Thanks for the feedback. -Rustavo 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bug you, but could you post your message on my talk page please. My watchlist gets filled to quickly otherwise.~  Giggy!  TalkContribs 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure whether it was considered kosher to move whole conversations back and forth - is that the way these things are generally done? Do I leave a copy on my talk page? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people simply put a message on the other person's talk page. You can leave it on your page if you want, it's up to you.  I don't, others do, your choice!  The only thing that you SHOULD do is put a message, at least a notification, on the other talk page.~  Giggy!  TalkContribs 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rustavo for a wonderful job in the pathology and anatomical pathology pages. I am glad to see that good sense is back at Wikipedia. Emmanuelm 16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed yes. The discussions at WSS/P don't actually need to be formally closed as such (that's just bookkeeping, really): five days is up, consensus seems to be clearly to create. Let me know if I can help any further. Alai 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that - go ahead. The only real quibble with it seems to be slight ambiguity of scope, which shouldn't be any more of a problem than it is in the main . Sorry about the initial grumbling on my part, BTW :) Grutness...wha?  02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lymphology
Perhaps "keep" should read "no consensus", but the end result is exactly the same: the status quo. All I can suggest is to resubmit the request in a few weeks and ensure that there is more input. I don't mean canvassing individual editors, which is frowned upon, but trying to get all editors who have an informed opinion on the subject to comment. Leaving a note at relevant projects, or on related article talk pages, would be the way to go. It's very difficult, even for far simpler subjects, to judge whether arguments over facts, rather than guidelines, are valid or not. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FTLD/FTD
Thank you for the well justified and needed correction of wording to the article on frontotemporal lobar degeneration. I couldn't agree more that it's important to keep pathological entities and clinical syndromes distinct. Also, I think it's important to keep the relevant information about the clinical entities thought to be caused by those pathologic processes in the article somehow. This is why I added some of the information you removed back to the article. Hopefully, this or something like it will seem a fair compromise. Cheers, sallison 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sinusitis Biofilm Edits
The sum total of your edits gives a factually incorrect impression. I believe it so reduces the presentation of the subject matter that it constructively violates NPO. The only time that biofilms have not been found in tissue removed from patients with CS is when the mateial was not examined for them. Once you know what you are looking at, were you to do either freeze fracture samples or use a confocal microscope and the approperate stains, you would see them.

Almost ALL important pathogens form biofilms.

The fact that it may take a Grassley Act law suit to get medical schools to pay attention to how real "wild type" bacteria grow is just really really sad.

Plese reply by e-mail or on my talk page, which you guys did not bother to do when you made these edits. Truehawk 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, a number of people have responded to your edits on the article talk page, which is the most appropriate location for such discussion. Regarding NPOV, it might be useful to re-read the section of the policy dealing with undue weight, which has been brought up regarding your edits on the article talk page. MastCell Talk 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of people responding to my edits, if I remember, was David Rubin, who has in the past e-mailed me when he was going to edit, Rustavo, and you MastCell? I think that you need to look into it further.Truehawk 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) This is a more approperate venue for what I have to say to you, as you if I remember correctly said that there was no section about biofilms in your infectious disease textbook. There is not. Now WHY??

I am a metallurgist. Don't you think that it is preculiar that the vet, the waste water scientist and I know more about biofilms than you do?

Do you think that approperate or desirable?

And why is MastCell responding on Rustavo's page? Truehawk 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible that you are right, and that the medical community has greatly underappreciated the role of biofilms in chronic sinusitis. However, Wikipedia is not the forum in which to make an original argument to that effect. There are plenty of other forums in which it would be more appropriate for to write at length about your personal theories regarding biofilms (might I suggest a free webhosting service?). One could synthesize any number of theories about the significance of the presence of biofilms on the mucosa of chronic sinusitis patients - they could be present as the result of an underlying immune deficiency, or they could be commensal organisms which are not harmful, but are able to grow on mucosa which has been damaged by previous inflammatory episodes from a completely different cause. In the absence of reliable published sources which directly discuss these hypotheses, it's not appropriate for any of us to inject our own favored one into the article.
 * I posted a summary of three studies, which you guys apparently either did not read, (David quoted mice to me once and now you don't know the material studied was from immune competent patients. Those details were in the articals if you read the references.) I also rephrased a sentance that orginally read something like. "The bacteria in the biofilms did not corrospond to interoperative cultures." To something like "The bacteia found in the biofilm did not corrospond to the bacteria cultured. etc" in an effort to make the mateial more accessible, and david hopped all over me for synthesize.

I am a metallurgist and I have seen biofilms on both pipes and native biological tissue. I think since you have seen fit to constructively delete what it took me a period of months to assemble, that YOU have a duty to do some research and rewrite the artical. I think that you and MastCell need to to do a bit of searching on "biofilm sinusitis" on Pubmed.gov and Biofilm modle. You need to learn what a Calgery Biofilm Device is, and Most important pathogens not only form biofilms, but are....Well you need to do the researh for yourself.


 * Regarding your second point, I assumed that since you had posted dozens of times on Talk:Sinusitis, you would continue to follow the discussion there. Since several commentators seemed to agree that your edits were not in line with basic rules about content on Wikipedia, I felt confortable proceeding with the changes. I'll copy this conversation to your talk page to ensure you get it.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You, MastCell David and who else??? are these Several commentors? Just go look into it okay, Then come back and write a peice. And Yes there have been a half dozen review articals.


 * Per your kindly phrased request, I have read a review article on biofilms in chronic sinusitis by James Palmer and made appropriate changes to the biofilm section of Sinusitis. Please refer to my comments on Talk:Sinusitis.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re phrasing - thanks for your careful edit - the nature of biofilms and why they might be of importance in sinusitis is well phrased (without having to overly rehash what is already in biofilm). The paragraph is NPOV in tone and of appropriate weight in the article. No one disputes what a biofilm is, and the edit is careful to not to suggest that the role in sinusitis has reached general consensus, but equally that it is being looked at further - a good encyclopaedic edit. David Ruben Talk 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Neoplasm Definition
The new definition of a neoplasm is too complicated in my opinion. The old definition (which I added) in essence says the same thing but in a more understandable manner for the non-science folk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porsch1909 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I didn't think it made sense to add another sentence defining neoplasm after the first definition. However, I like your phrase "proliferation of cells", and have included it in place of "growth" in the first line. "Uncontrolled" is not entirely accurate, since many neoplasms are benign and their growth is essentially self-controlled. Please sign & date your comments on talk pages in the future by typing four tieldes ( ~ ). Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing the comment. I'm new to editing pages on wikipedia. But I understand how a categorical definition of a neoplasm can be a grey area. Porsch1909 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

US attorney controversy, election pressures
Care to take on writing a ~ three or four sentence "issues in brief" item on various items related to this? -- Cheers Yellowdesk 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a draft outline on rewriting the "planning" section. You may be knowledgable about citable sources to know what's possible to say how the elections angle influenced early list-making. See the draft in progress at Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox. See also: Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy.
 * This also brings to mind that a genuine, in-depth section on the elections angle, who contacted whom, who came forward later, perhaps even a US map of close states / congressional/Senate districts and comparison to allegedly pressured U.S. attorneys would be an interesting thing...if we can find citable sources. What do you think?
 * --- Yellowdesk 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

MacPherson
see my page. DGG 03:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dilute Russell's viper venom time
Regarding your last edit to this particular article, it sounds like you and Jschowin may be more familiar with this subject than I am. However, what you claim to be the case is somewhat at odds with the cited reference. Nevertheless, I'd be more than willing to leave your edit uncontested as long as you supply a clear reference: a book, an article in a journal or even a web page. But, please don't leave it like it is now: so many Wikipedia article contain inaccuracies because people do not cite their sources. Besides, the way things stand now, it looks like we're saying the cited reference says something that is does not. --Jwinius 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm very pleased with your current explanation and reference. Thanks! --Jwinius 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading over that document today, I felt inspired to create a new and related article: Ecarin clotting time. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at it and check to see if it makes sense. --Jwinius 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rewrite. Now I can understand what I was actually trying to say! :-) --Jwinius 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:ONCOLOGY
I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at WikiProject_Council/Proposals

Regards, Djma12 (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
You deserve a barnstar. Axl 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gross examination
I have nominated Gross examination, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Gross examination. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  R k O R  T o  N  00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad it seems to have survived the AfD - I've been away for a bit - but you're correct that it certainly needed some fleshing out. I've done a bit of work on it - hope you'll find it to be an improvement. RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Pathology conversion to WPMED taskforce
Hi Rustavo,

You may be aware that moves are afoot to subsume the pathology project under WPMED as a taskforce. Please see the message at the discussion page, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. I support the idea, and as yet I'm the only participant who's voiced any opinion. Would you please add yours?

Cheers, Mattopaedia (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Feminization (activity)


The article Feminization (activity) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * unreferenced, not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. serioushat 09:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added you to Missing Wikipedians
Just to let you know (I am supposed to - this is what it says). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Whisperback
10:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Seth Moulton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seth Moulton 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/Seth Moulton (2nd nomination) 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. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback
05:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cancer
Hi, I was looking at Hormonal therapy (oncology) and its history, and was delighted to see that you have recently resumed editing after a long gap. I realize this was around a particular non-medical topic, but I'm hoping I can interest you in taking a look at my Wikipedian in Residence project at Cancer Research UK, lasting until mid-December. In terms of articles we are concentrating on Lung cancer (already FA), Pancreatic cancer, Esophageal cancer (work underway on these) and Brain tumor (shudder). But a number of other articles are also being improved. Unfortunately your pattern of editing career is very common - much of the material on cancer was added at a high level of quality in the years up to about 2010-11, but since then relatively little has been added or updated. Nowadays medical students (which I think you were when last editing) do not take up editing as much as they did some years ago. Any contributions you care to make will be very gratefully received, even just quick review points on talk.

The project page is []. Best, Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for the kind words. I would like to make some more Wikipedia contributions in the future, but will probably restrict myself to areas in which I am particularly familiar. I'm a specialist in lymphoma and may turn my attention to that and related pages. I see that lymphoma is not currently a subject of your group's reviews, but perhaps it will be in the future? RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid it isn't, despite being one of our most-viewed articles on cancer. The initial targets were taken from CRUK's new research strategy, but eg at Endometrial cancer when someone in the states started a major overhaul & nominating it for featured article, CRUK people gave it 2 reviews. Seems plenty to do on lymphoma, & let me know if I can help - eg the epidemiology & research directions are pretty thin. I'm only at CRUK till December but wikipediaATcancer.org.uk is a permanent address that should find whoever is continuing to carry the torch. Best, Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Feminization (sociology) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminization (sociology) 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/Feminization (sociology) 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. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!