User talk:Srsval

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics_for_All Is the page you created. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Srsval/sandbox (October 17)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Hi The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80, please can you direct me to my submission so that I can see the comments left by the reviewer? I can't find it. Thanks! Srsval (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Srsval/sandbox


Hello Srsval. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Srsval. All or some of your addition(s) to Elaine Fantham has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sally Katary, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Please read MOS:DOCTOR. Thank you.'' Linguist 111  If you reply here, please type    before your message. 11:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Using Dr.
You weren't being reverted arbitrarily. Your work is appreciated but it needs to follow our guidelines as you've been told above. This particular one is at MOS:DOCTOR. Also, after the first use of a full name, we normally use only the surname. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

January 2018
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Leslie Brubaker, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GaiaOctaviaAgrippa Thanks for your message. Adding the PhD title is a minor edit as this could not be subject of a dispute. See the reference to the library catalogue page for Johns Hopkins University. Thanks.

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


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

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

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

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Tarrant
The cited source says she was professor emeritus. By changing this to emerita you are misrepresenting the source. I would also note that the article is in English, not Latin, and emeritus is standard usage in English regardless of the gender of the post holder. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that both the National Archives and the National Portrait Gallery call her Professor Emeritus. DuncanHill (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sally Katary


A tag has been placed on Sally Katary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/sally-katary-egyptologist-professor-dedicated-mom-353282. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories
Hi Srsval! Thanks for adding categories to some articles. However, many of the categories you have added are not needed. For example, if an article has Category:Women classical scholars it only needs to be added to Category:Classical scholars if it does not have Category:"Nationality" classical Scholar (eg Category:British classical scholars). This is because a nationality category is a diffusing sub-category of Category:Classical scholars where as one by gender is non-diffusing. Category:Classical studies does not need to to be added to any article with Category:Classical scholars (or its sub-categories) as it is itself a sub-category of Category:Classical studies. Does this make sense? Please also look at what categories an article already has before adding any more so that you don't end up repeating them as you did at Esther Eidinow. If this isn't clear, feel free to ask questions or check out Categorization. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Srsval, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already written several biographies of women academics. I hope there will be many more. If you run into any problems or need any help, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Articles for creation
Hi Srsval. There's no very good reason why you need to go through Articles for Creation in order to create an article, as you did with Marianne Sághy. You could just start it in article space; or start it as a draft and then move it to article space yourself. Obviously a) if it's your preference to go via AfC then that's fine; do so and b) I don't know if there's any restriction preventing new users adding directly to article space: and I doubt you'd be classed as a new user. AfC is rather bunged up, and often-times seems to impose ridiculously high standards on articles before they'll condescend to promote them. In my view, best avoided. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tagishsimon. Thanks for this. The only reason I used my sandbox to create the article was because I didn't want to create it all at once. When I've created articles directly but not all in one go they've been deleted before I've had chance to finish them! So I was trying to avoid this. Thanks for the advice though! And thanks very much for your own contribution to the article. Great! Tagishsimon Srsval (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sandbox good. AfC, maybe not so good - just my cynical prejudice, of course. I'm hoping you have a 'Move' option under a 'More' top right menu option (just to the left of the search box) ... I'm rather afraid I've lost track of which facilities come by default in wikipedia and which are added via ticking options in Preferences.


 * My main aim in lurking around #WCCWiki is to try to make sure that WCC contributors don't get hit by wikipedia tomfoolery such as premature deletions, or AfC rejections; so long as you make changes to Women's Classical Committee or Women's Classical Committee/Aims, I'll tend to find and if necessary fettle issues with articles. (Other than that, these days, I do most of my work on wikidata.)


 * Thank you for the barnstar; but thank you much more for the work you & WCC put in to creating articles. It's very much appreciated - the gender gap is rotten, and you guys are very much to be congratulated for addressing it in a practical, competent fashion. Ping me if ever you think I can be of specific help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Your support is really invaluable. I'm not particularly technically savvy when it comes to Wikipedia editing, and most of the pages I've created or edited for #WCCWiki have been targeted at some point. Have a fantastic day!!! Tagishsimon Srsval (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You too :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Garrod
Srsval, I'm afraid this nomination does not qualify for DYK: only newly created, newly 5x expanded, or newly listed Good Articles qualify: seven days are allowed from the creation, start of expansion, or listing as a Good Article for a nomination to be made. The Dorothy Garrod article has been around since 2004 and hasn't had a fivefold expansion (or even any recent edits). I am removing the transclusion you just made to the nominations page, as a 2017 date disrupts a number of processes, and will shortly be closing the above nomination as unsuccessful.

Thanks for trying DYK, but please read carefully the information on WP:DYK before making any further nominations, recalling that the activity on any article must be very recent. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Garrod at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

WiR talk
I've already taken that user to task for exactly that comment - User_talk:ClemRutter --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support Tagishsimon. Not sure how much more negativity I want to take through this. I could happily be like most other women and not edit Wikipedia!
 * Mmm. I lived in hope that the comment would have been removed before anyone from #WCCWiki got to the thread. Still: Rosiestep is ace, quite apart from being that rare thing, a decorated Wikipedian. You should meet her ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Srsval and ; thanks for pinging me here. I am supportive of what you wrote on ClemRutter's talkpage, Tagishsimonl; well done. I hope the negativity doesn't abate your enthusiasm to edit Wikipedia, Srsval. There are all the people in the world whom you'll never hear from who read what you write and would be the losers if you left. At least the Pollyanna in me has convinced myself of that. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

April 2019
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruth Macrides has been accepted
 Ruth Macrides, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Ruth_Macrides help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

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

Copyright problem on Helen Nicholson (historian)
Content you included in the above article appears to have been copied from https://apholt.com/2016/07/18/the-state-of-crusade-studies-an-interview-with-dr-helen-j-nicholson/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Emily Gowers
Hi, I see you reverted my edit on Emily Gowers. There were some concerns raised that since this article was part of the WCC project to raise the profile of women classicists on Wikipedia, it isn't great that the first section on her article is all about the distinguished men that she's connected to.  J.Gowers  08:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi  J.Gowers  , yes I did revert the edit because I felt that this was a removal of important information that was in the public interest to keep. However, you make a good point, and usually the foregrounding of women according to men, eminent or otherwise, should be avoided absolutely. How about a compromise? I deleted the 'early life' and instead moved the information lower down the page as 'personal life'. This way the information remains but it isn't the first thing you read about her. Let me know your thoughts. Srsval (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be consistent with most other articles. I will try and add some more information to that section to dilute the men a bit.  J.Gowers   10:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  J.Gowers  Great! Thank you Srsval (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Olga Palagia
I have been one of the editors at wikipedia who has worked most on academic biographies fo the last 12 years, and I was in fact one of the people responsible for the ucrrent acceptance of WP:PROF, without which we would have man fewer. I concentrate my efforts on making the bios for notable people stronger, especially in fields other than thesciences, because thos areheifields where people unfamiliar with the academic world tend to nominate for deletion.

We have a serious problem with promotional bios in all fields, including this. Such bios are usually written by university PR staff, though sometimes by the professor's students. (They are also increasingly written by undeclared paid editors, who solicit faculty who ae unawarethat this sort of editing is not permitted in WP). Really promotional bios are deleted usually by speedy deletion, even when the person is clearly notable, unless I or one oft he other 2 or 3 editors willing to do it think the person so extremely notable that it's worth rewriting. Ordinarily promotional bios for borderline people are usually deleted at AfD if they get noticed.

It's therefore important for all editors working in these field to avoid anything that might sound like promotion.Even when the intend is clearly to write a NPOV bio, as is the case with your work, it's all too easy to sound a little promotional. (Forthe areas you work in, there's still considerable skepticism with classics, because some of the people here who do not understand try to remove them on the basis of the generally low citation count--which is of course totally inapplicable in this field; There also remain a few people who give unwarrented skeptical scrutiny to articles on women, including women academics). The best way of dealing with this is to make the articles as strong as possible.

Strong does not necessarily mean extensive. it means not using promotional language, not including minor material, and writing concisely without duplication. --- I made my edits because:
 * 1) We do not use adjectives of praise or quality in biographies, especially biographies of living people. They're always subjective, and WP is not the place for opinion. It is usually possible to reword it, as I did, by such wording fixes as changing "best known for" to "is a specialist in"  . Is a specialist in is objective--the professorship and the publications  shows it.
 * 2) Giving lectures at conferences is utterly routine for both notable and non-notable academics. (I certainly had a non-notable academic career, but I've given a few dozen conference talks--one or two of them have even been invited.) This is the sort of thing people list in their CVs, because it's the current convention to list everything possible in a CV. But WP does not publish CS--for minor we can  just link to the CV in the External references.  It's much better to focus on those things that make a person notable. This includes prestigeous named lectures, it includes being chair of a very important conference.
 * 3) Similarly for fellowships. Even non-notable people have a few. We do not include graduate and post-graduate fellowships, but we list prestigious ones that people having some knowledge in the field will recognize. And similarly for most items in poplular press, or television talks, or U-Tube. And similarly for TedX. (Ted, however, is worth mentioning).
 * 4) When listing fellowships, or publications, or awards, or anything in any article, it's puffery to use a phrase like "for example" or "including" -- see WP:VAGUE/ Yjos ;eaves the reader wondering how many there really were--and  it is often a promotional technique also. It's enough to list the important ones.
 * 5) For people in fields where notability is primarily by published books from university presses, we usually do not include articles--they count as minor. But in classics, and archeology, where readership tends to be limited so it's difficult to get books published, wwe do often incldue articles. And in archeology especially, we similarly do include book chapters

I may revert a few of your changes. (I may also make some changes in earlier articles). You don't have to agree with my style, and I won't fight about it. But I do have the experience to know what works here.  DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) When the notability of women subjects have not been made clear through descriptions of them as 'experts' or 'leaders in their field', these pages have been targeted for deletion as lacking notability. I absolutely agree that articles on women are subjected to overt scrutiny and skepticism, and pages therefore need to be made as strong as possible. In reverting your changes that is what I was trying to do. I apologise if this has offended you. Please do not threaten to revert my changes arbitrarily. Srsval (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors here did have the practice of insisting on a statement that the person was notable because.... in the lede of the article--back 12 years ago, when I started here. They shouldn't be doing it now, and if anyone says anything of the sort, please let me know on my user talk page, and I will explain the current practice to them. Current practice is the opposite: ones gives in the first sentence or two the key information that establishes notability, and readers judge for themselves what it means. For academics, it means that one give immediate the highest position or title in the first sentence, and if there is a major award, one says it right there, instead of burying it.
 * "Strong" does not mean expansive. Expansive articles for non-famous people give just the opposite effect to what is desired. Including material that is not really important makes it look like there's nothing important. People here tend to judge articles at the first impression. If it looks like puffery, the frequent current reaction is to immediately try to delete it as promotional . The alternative, of rewriting to remove the puffery, is rarely done--there are two or three people here only who are willing to do that for academics in the humanities, and I'm one of them. I will sometimes do it for other academics if it's easy, and especially if it's women and the notability is clear enough.
 * I tried to carefully write what I said so it would not sound threatening. Rather,  very few articles on academics that I rewrite and defend ever get deleted--maybe 5 out of the 1000 I've rewritten in the last 10 years.  I know the style of those who attack articles on academics, and I can usually edit an article so they won't be tempted to even attack it.  If I go back to this article, I will restore some but not all of what I did.

Elizabeth A. Clark
This article is easy, because the notability is so very clear. but again, it's not presented as well as it could be--there is particular is a good deal of duplication, I have removed it. There is however one really serious problem. You licensed the book covers on Commons as your own work. I doubt they are your own work--they are much more likely to be the work of the designers whom the publishers have hired. They therefore do not have a valid free license, and observing copyright is considered so very important here that this matters. . The rules for what has a free license are extremely rigid--if the artists hold the copyright, or if they transferred the copyright to the publishers, you do not own the copyright and you cannot donate it. .So you can't use the images here. The images of a book cover can be in some cases used on enWP as fair use, as one of our few exceptions to a free license, but can be used only for an article on the book, not on the author. Thebest course will be for you to ask they be deleted from Commons, and remove them here.  DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WCC talk page additions
Yoho, Thanks for adding in the various WikiProject banners into some #WCC talk pages. I initially spotted an update to one of the articles I was watching which has warranted my message here.

It was on Penelope Mountjoy's page, and I've spotted it on Rose Ferraby's as well - that when you've bulk added in the new Wikiproject data to cover WCC, Classics, and Women's history it has done two things that need flagging: 1) it has duplicated the template for WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (via "WikiProject Classics" template) in some cases (see here) and that the new additions appear beneath a WikiProject Banner template in the middle of the list. To avoid future confusion for the CGR WikiProject it'll be worth checking these edits to remove the duplicate and the move the banner shell upwards. I've amended Mountjoy's talk page (Talk:Penelope Mountjoy) as well to move the Banner shell higher up in case you wanted to copy the syntax from the edit page.

Thanks, happy thoughts, best wishes etc. Zakhx150 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Zakhx150, thanks for this, and apologies for the duplication/confusion!Srsval (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephanie Jones-Rogers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stephanie_Jones-Rogers check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stephanie_Jones-Rogers?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/stephanie jones-rogers
Srsval, your DYK nomination does not meet the criteria, and won't be able to run at DYK. There's an explanation at your nomination linked to above, but basically, DYK nominations must be nominated within seven days of the start of your expansion (or the article's creation). In this case, you started the expansion back on February 21, nearly eight weeks ago, and it wasn't expanded fivefold (only threefold); with an April 17 nomination, the expansion had to have been started no later than April 10. I'm sorry it didn't work out this time; best of luck with any future nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth A. Clark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emerita.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to Medieval Wiki 2020!
Hello Srsval! Thank you for signing up to take part in #MedievalWiki 2020! We've freshly made a project badge, which you are welcome to display on your userpage should you wish. Here's the direct link to our Meetup page for your easy reference. See you on Wednesday! - Medievalfran (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

November edith-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

December with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed deletion of Jinyu Liu


The article Jinyu Liu has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the qualifications of WP:NSCHOLAR. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jinyu Liu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jinyu Liu 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/Jinyu Liu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)



Autopatrolled
Hi Srsval, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ASrsval added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Women classicists
Thanks, Srsval, for your kind attention to the biographies I have created over the past couple of weeks. I usually try to work on women from outside the English-speaking world as there are literally thousands of editors who can work in English. With Marguerite Naville I seem to have exhausted my list of notable classicists from around Europe. I have looked at the background of many others, including those on the redlists, but while some of them might theoretically be acceptable as full professors, there's very little about them in secondary sources. If you nevertheless come across any you think deserve biographies, please let me know and I'll see what I can do.--Ipigott (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, your pages are fantastic! It's great to see such diversity of women classicists, I'm learning a lot and find out about new people! I'm also so pleased to see that you're able to get images onto pages too. When I come across a woman classicist in need of a page I tend to add it to the Wikipedia Project Page: Women's Classical Committee, but I can fill your talk page too if you'd like! I'm particularly keen on editing pages for LGBTQ+ women classicists this month (February) as it's LGBTQ+ History Month, so if you stumble across any historical LGBTQ+ women classicists, do let me know! Thanks Srsval (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As for the images, I usually write biographies on women of historic interest. As a result, there are frequently images available which are out of copyright. I find these preferable to fair use images to EN articles as Commons images can be used in all the other language versions and on Wikidata. I have looked at Women's Classical Committee but cannot find any redlists apart from Women's Classical Committee/Wikidata redlist. Can you give me a more specific link? I'm sure there must be many more than those already on Wikidata. Good luck with your LGBTQ+ developments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Grace O'Malley
Before you mess up the article Grace O'Malley again, I advice you to read the talk page. The Banner talk 20:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A kitten for you!
For all your amazing #WCCWiki co-ordination!

KateCook (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 

August Editathons with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Mary Renault
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Renault you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Renault
The article Mary Renault you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary Renault for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Renault
The article Mary Renault you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary Renault for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I add my personal congrats to those of the blasted bot. A pleasure reviewing the article, and it will give pleasure to those reading it in future.  Tim riley  talk   14:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tim riley!!! Your review definitely improved the article, I'm so pleased to see it achieve Good Article status! --Srsval (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Kittens for getting Mary Renault to GA!
 Eritha has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Eritha (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kathleen Freeman (classicist)
Hello! I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Kathleen Freeman (classicist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've left a few comments on the review page. Happy to discuss any if you wish.  Tim riley  talk   16:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kathleen Freeman (classicist)
The article Kathleen Freeman (classicist) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kathleen Freeman (classicist) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Renault
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Freeman (classicist)
Hi, thank you for the nomination, which I reviewed late on 19 April. Please can you respond to the issues I raised on the nomination page? Nominators are normally expected to respond within one week of the review, i.e. by 26 April. TSventon (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I can see you are not on Wikipedia much at the moment. I asked some further questions a week ago on 25 April, please can you respond to them? Otherwise I will post a request for another editor to adopt the nomination. TSventon (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, TSventon, your review involved a lot of work including considerable additions to the page for Kathleen Freeman and coming up with a new hook, and I haven't had time to get to this. Srsval (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the reply, I was going to post another reminder, but just previewed it. Can you keep me updated, at least every seven days? If you know you are busy for the next few days, you could mention that. It will give me quite a lot of work to review answers to the questions, so if you wanted to answer a couple of questions at a time, that would spread my work as well. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, another reminder as another week has passed. TSventon (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have approved the nomination after some help from WikiProject Women in Red and it should appear on the main page shortly. TSventon (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Kathleen Freeman (classicist)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year, Srsval!


Happy New Year! Srsval, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

CS1 error on Celia Schultz
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Celia Schultz, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Srsval&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1177174625 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celia_Schultz&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1177174625%7CCelia%20Schultz%5D%5D Ask for help])

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

January 2024
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Shelley Haley. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. A false claim of vandalism is a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Single Parents in UK Parliaments
Hi there! In the article you created, Single Parents in UK Parliaments, there is an error in reference 2. References should not contain both page and pages. Could you please fix this reference to remove the red error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Classical Association, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stephen Halliwell and Judith Mossman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging