User talk:SusunW/Archive 26

Your summary on how to write articles about women
You've made an excellent start on this -- lots of useful tips for both new and seasoned users. My only worry is that it seems to have grown significantly from the nutshell you originally intended. May I suggest you present it in two parts or sections (possibly even as two documents), the first summarizing the essentials, the second giving more detailed information and advice on the topics you raise. I think a presentation of the essentials would be particularly useful for newcomers and for editathons.

The only other comment I have is that I am not sure whether newcomers will understand what you mean by redlink. I think that while some people might indeed click on a name on a list of redlinks, most begin by searching for a name, writing it in the "Search Wikipedia" box. If it is not already an article, it will then appear as a redlink on the "Search results" page. Perhaps you should add these details as I have sometimes been asked "How can I create an article on Wikipedia?" by people who are otherwise quite computer-literate.

Let me know if I can help you further with this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian! It's a balancing act I'm struggling with it a bit. I want to keep it short, but address specific items not already in creation doc guides that relate directly to women. I added a bit about searching for the name, that's a critical step I missed. Rosie has said she'd like a series of essays. I can easily see that the top part could be used to prepare for an editathon and the bottom for writing actual articles, but I wanted an overall view for our project of essentials. How we make use of it once we have it, is anyone's game. In the last month, the problem of poorly written ledes has been brought home on numerous AfDs and obviously, sourcing and names are always challenging. SusunW (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever you decide to do, Susun, I think you should move one version to Women in Red in order to assist newcomers. We could link it to our own editathon pages and communicate it to people like to help them run their own events. All the information it contains is pertinent but it might be a bit too much to feed directly to newcomers as an initial guide to biographies about women.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved it here Creating biographies on women. created shortcuts and page boxes for it. No idea where to post it, but feel free to edit it or post it where you think best. SusunW (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you SO much for the Thea Tewi assistance! It is really much appreciated.

Mabalu (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 
 * You are very welcome. I love gatitos! It looks almost like my wee one, "Mouse". I'm a pretty decent researcher, and am always willing to help, if I can. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Atherton House
thanks for making the refs all cuteWikigirl97 (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Sue did most of the conversions, I just copy edited it a bit ;) SusunW (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy McRae-McMahon
Thank you for your detailed review of Dorothy. You've given me lots to absorb and do, but I know it will be worth it to improve the entry! If I get stuck, I will post again here on your Talk page. I see that User:Andrew_Davidson has made some changes and moved the page. Please do not feel that your work was unnecessary - it's helpful learning for future articles. Oronsay (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I saw that Andrew moved the file. Obviously, as a project we want the articles that are created to meet the guidelines and withstand any attempts to delete them. I am perhaps overly cautious, but especially on a WP:BLP I would rather err on the side of caution. I am rarely bold ;) Anytime you need help, feel free to ask and I will try my best to assist. SusunW (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand the importance of meeting requirements. You took a lot of time and care providing your suggestions, which is much appreciated. I will remember to seek your help if I or one of our small team get stuck in the future. Thank you again :-) Oronsay (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Mutual Admiration Society

 * Woo Hoo! I'm in and thank you. I have wine and am making shrimp and grits. I might even dig out a bottle of your favorite poison. I am sure I have some of that clear stuff around here somewhere ;) SusunW (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a glass in my name and I'll do a shot of whatever I find at the liquor store tonight in yours. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , lookie! Our resident has joined us and brought goodies. We couldn't do what we do without his help and I am so glad to have him join our society :) SusunW (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I like snacks! Thank you, ! You are now an official member of the Mutual Appreciation Society! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Great to be admitted to the SuSu Suciety. But these snacks were specially selected for you two: Karamel SuSu, Dodol SuSu and Kerupuk SuSu.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Prison 21
I've expanded to the disambiguation. Here's what I did:

If you click on a redirect and it takes you another page, you notice how it reads "Redirected from [X]" under the new page's title? You can click on that link to [X] and it will take you to the redirect page. From there you can edit it however you like/need. Not in the least intuitive...took me a good bit of poking around to figure out, way back whenever it was.

Sorry I didn't get to it sooner, but I've been out all evening. Just got back.

Hope that's of help! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Any time. Always happy to be of help. Happy editing! :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * I am so enjoying the coffee And you are so welcome. Anytime I can reciprocate for the help you give to me, I will give it my best shot. :) SusunW (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thank you ! I honestly had no idea that it was my cumpleaños, in part because I actually started editing several months before as an IP editor. When I decided I could actually contribute and learn simultaneously, I created a user name. Totally appreciate your support over the years. I would never have done a GA without you pushing me to try. (Speaking of which Sophia Parnok seems to be stuck in lala land). Your encouragement, when the negativity of Wikiworld has emerged, has often been what kept me around. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Time flies on Wikipedia doesn't it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa! 3 years! Break out the awesomesauce and we'll chow down on 's SuSu snacks! ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Time does fly. Mayhaps if we have a bit of a snack it will perk me up to finish the article I am struggling with. She's a huge figure, but trying to put her life in context in a chaotic political environment is tough. I am spending a whole lot of time trying to figure out what happened in Paraguay so that her life makes sense. SusunW (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I must say, Susun, these stats are really impressive. I also see you have created 890 new articles since you started, most of them about women. And last but not least, your recent guidelines on women's biographies (Creating women's biographies and Primer for AfD, etc.) contain lots of useful information for all of us.--Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am working toward 1000 Maybe I'll hit it this year. Poco y poco. And thank you! I am probably gonna post my current lady on your page later today and ask for a wee bit of help. Just a warning ;) SusunW (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help with your latest ladies.--Ipigott (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy (belated) 3rd anniversary! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Lillian Molieri
Hi I stubbed this but unfortunately couldn't find anything further of substance. Can you find enough flesh to make it start class? If not no worries. Unfortunately most of her roles were small uncredited parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * well I did what I could with it. Thought the radio show award was a pretty good find ;) SusunW (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow!! That is absolutely astonishing what you were able find! Thank you so much, amazed!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

A cookie for you!

 * Thank you Those are the articles that make me want to pull out my hair. Clearly notable, lots of sources, but few available to access. But, over the last 2 days, I did 2 really awesome women scientists, who had plenty of sources and were leaders in their fields in their countries. So ironic that a writer should have so few written sources. Such is life. SusunW (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Luckily, over the last 10 years, I've been able to access content which was previously unavailable so here's hoping the trend continues. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally . That's what I hope for. Archive.org and hathitrust have been great at releasing previously unavailable works. I just hope it continues :) SusunW (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much of this issue is about countries vs. publishers. This is why I feel that it's important to get the article started as soon as I can -and, of course, I can't start everything I want to start when I want to start it- lest "someone" removes access to a currently-available resource. I find it frustrating when I'm on international travel that I can't access certain sources that are available to me while I'm in the US. All in all, so much work still to do, often with one arm tied behind our back, unable to access a vital reference(s). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Susun and, I thought this might interest you: Banned Books Week started yesterday. It's sort of on-topic here. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally love it! SusunW (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've been asked about banned books already, today, ! One of the most frequently challenged books is this totally cute book, And Tango Makes Three. Every time I hear Banned Book Week, I think of penguins now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear that, . Paywalls, snipppets, banned books... they all have the same outcome: limiting or prohibiting access to written material. Wish I could do more in this regard. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Latin contest list
Hi, can you find more missing women to list here? Belize only has one entry at present!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers.com
Hi, could you help me view these articles for a new women's bio that I'm writing? and. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, here they are:, . On the first one, the print is tiny and I am unsure if you can get it to enlarge without being a subscriber, so I cut the portion for readability SusunW (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * de nada. Anytime. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in medicine
Hi SusunW -- I noticed that you alphabetized a section of the women in medicine list. The other sections are chronological, and the overall structure is chronological. To be honest, I think chronological ordering makes a little more sense than alphabetical when you're talking about "history" -- it gives more of a sense of the progression. What do you think? --Lquilter (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Chronological make sense if it is obvious that that is what you are using, but in this case, it isn't apparent. Chronological by what criteria? Chronological by date of birth doesn't work in many situations for women's achievements because they could not follow the trajectories men did. Many early women did not achieve their medical schooling until long after they had had another career or family. Most of the entries don't contain the date that they began practicing, finished med studies or graduated, when, if they were licensed, etc. so I am unsure what criteria was by date. Alphabetical by century avoids duplicates. Admittedly they could also be avoided if they were arranged by date of their achievement, but then that date should appear first and someone would have to input it on all of the women. When I evaluated the list, as the dates of achievement were not listed, it appeared totally random. I don't hold strong opinions one way or the other, as long as the order is evident to all contributors. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I recently rearranged it from one long (unmanageably long) list, to breaking down the list and including them within their historical eras. There had been a note about chronological ordering at the top of the original list, and it was chronological by birth. No chronological ordering is going to perfectly contextualize people; it's not clear what "event" to pick, for instance. Date of birth (where known) gives some approximate placement in time. Ambiguity is also present in alphabetical, since women's names change over time, and naming conventions change across cultures. So chronological adds at least some useful context. Noting "chronological by birth" at the top of the columns would solve the clarity, right? --Lquilter (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would. As I said, I don't really care what the order is as long as it's clear what it is. Totally agree they should be within eras a giant list is unmanageable and doesn't really put things into perspective. ;) SusunW (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable women lists
I think we might have a misunderstanding here, Susun. I've now moved the List of the world's most prominent women to mainspace. On rereading the discussion on the WiR talkpage, I now realize your additions were in line with your proposal to compile a list with one woman per country. I think it would be interesting to compile a world list along those lines, perhaps after we have completed the world women contest, but I was really trying to overcome Wikipedia's current bias towards lists which are 90% men. I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a List of Africa's most prominent women. I think we could put something together quite quickly and we could include the names you intended to include in the world list. I would also appreciate your ideas on how detailed these lists should be. I only included very basic info on the world list but this could be expanded if you think it would be useful. I also think we should limit the world list to 200 names as others can be included in lists on the continents, etc. And comments or ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that there is a world of difference in women who impacted other women and women that have been written about and are "known" to the world at large. The world at large has ignored women's accomplishments, thus, being famous, is to me pretty irrelevant. I don't usually think in linear categorizations, as assigning power based upon power structures which have mostly not worked for women isn't logical to me. By those standards, someone who is a national heroine in a small, Caribbean nation is never going to have the prominence of even a pop star known on the world stage. In a list of women who were vital to the development of other women, names such as Jane Addams, Simone de Beauvoir, Carrie Chapman Catt, Juana Inés de la Cruz, Ochy Curiel, Aletta Jacobs, Marta Lamas, Audre Lorde, Florence Nightingale, Alice Paul, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosika Schwimmer, Doris Stevens, Edith Windsor, and Mary Wollstonecraft immediately come to mind, but very few of those are on your list. I understand your desire to add more diversity to our current lists, but I think I am far better at just writing articles and leaving the whole organization thing to others. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean no disrespect and am not trying to be critical or cantankerous. I am truly appreciative of your efforts to expand women's visibility. We just have very different visions of inclusion and prominence. SusunW (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can work to cover both of these deficiencies. My world list needs expansion and we can also work together on other lists. Your idea of one woman per country also deserves attention. But the basic problem for me was that Wikipedia offered no list at all of prominent women, only prominent men. Let's sleep on it and see what we can do tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now had time to look more closely at your interesting suggestions. I've included Jane Adams, Juana Inés de la Cruz and Audre Lorde on the world list as they appear not only to have been major advocates of improved conditions for women but have gained wide prominence. Alice Paul looks like a border line case but I decided not to include her on the world list as already 28 of the 109 names are Americans. As for the others you suggest, Ochy Curiel, Marta Lamas, Doris Stevens, Rosika Schwimmer and Aletta Jacobs do not seem to be sufficiently widely recognized for their impact. I see that Alice Paul, Carrie Chapman Catt, Aletta Jacobs and Doris Stevens are already on the List of feminists. I think Rosika Schwimmer also deserves to be added. I'm not too sure about the others but you might like to add them yourself. I don't think our ideas vary as much as you think. It's more a matter of how we think details should be presented. In any case, for me this has been a very useful discussion. I'm still wondering if we need a list of the world's most notable feminists and women's rights advocates. Do you think it would be useful to compile a list of, say, the 100 most influential players or maybe it's more important to compile lists of the most prominent women in Africa, Asia and Latin America.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue for me is that if you put a list of women under a title of "feminists" or "women's rights activists" you have relegated it to a list that will be consulted mostly by other women and doesn't put them into a historical context. Moreso than just a list of vital women in history because of the negative connotations of the very words, they are branded with "an agenda". Then there is the other shading in which many view feminism as philosophical or biological (passive) rather than political (active) (thank you Ochy Curiel). "Widely known" is a slippery slope to me. Goes back to that fame vs. notability debate and reinforces that if those who wield the pen write about them then they must be the most vital. He who wins or has power writes the history. Women and minorities who were known and "acceptable" were and still are written about in mainstream media. Women and minorities who were known and were deemed "unacceptable" were not written about and are lost to history, which doesn't remotely mean that they were not notable nor that they did not impact and change the world in major ways.
 * As for lists on Africa and Asia I am fairly ignorant of their history, which is why I proposed that we get input from our sister projects. Though I know a great deal of Latin American history, I would defer to someone else's scholarly judgement as an insider, rather than someone who has looked at it as an outsider. I'd still far rather have a list of women who are vital to the study of history of each country than one that is heavily weighted toward geographical divisions, as that just emphasizes our divides rather than our similarities as humans. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the assessment of fame/notability is at the basis of the current AfD. Maybe it would be just as well to move the article to Women in Green where we can develop it further and define more precise criteria. But it does seem strange to me that when there is so much literature on the most notable women in history, there is no place for an article on the subject in Wikipedia. As you can see from the article's talk page, to address some of your concerns I was thinking of sorting the names in the list under headings such as history, culture, business and perhaps civil rights. That would provide a slot for feminists and women's advocates which all would see. As you seem to have realized, the main reason I compiled the list was to offer a set of names to encourage wider interest in women on Wikipedia and to show how women have played an important part in all the key areas of interest. You are quite right in thinking lists of feminists, etc., are mainly of interest to women and do not have wide impact. But let's now see how the discussions evolve. I expect there will be considerable interest in deletion rather than interest in the article's further development.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it will be deleted as well. If you look at the last source I added, many of the women are on the list. If there is some way to salvage the list for mainspace, you could base it upon that list, but it would have to be renamed. SusunW (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is also an interesting discussion on this on the talk page of what is now List of notable women.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also drew on "Women who changed the world" but did not list it as it was so similar to many of the others. I think we could provide at least 20 more along the same lines, especially if we include those in other languages. That's why I can't understand why the list cannot be on mainspace. There's lots of literature to support it.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was just reading it. You do realize that the proposal for it to include "that the person is taught about to primary school children in at least 50 countries in a country wide syllabus" is reinforcing exactly what I said before about being written about. When I was in primary school, the only women, and I do mean only that we were introduced to were Martha Washington, Betsy Ross and Sacajawea. None remotely interesting to me and certainly not anyone who would be someone I could relate to. In high school we were introduced to some literary figures, but again, old, dead people as I thought then and no historic women at all. World history, also not introduced until high revolved around war. Thankfully I loved to read, I discovered Sylvia Plath and Audre Lorde and realized that it wasn't that women did not exist in history, but that they weren't teaching about them. In college, I discovered women's studies and for the first time, felt like I was given history that I could relate to. I was a chemical engineering student, later a banking and finance student, and finally after 2 degrees and ten years I earned a degree in women's studies. I cannot imagine it is much different now, in at least 50 countries to primary students would be nil. Where do they teach world history to primary students? Creating impossible bars is why it will not go into mainspace. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD discussion is certainly very stereotyped. I really don't feel like commenting there myself but it would be good to have one or two keeps before it disappears completely. I had move the list to the mainspace as I thought it would attract some contructive comments, not just calls for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your concerns are summarized here.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not surprising to me in the least, reflects my personal experience. I did work for a time in the schools in Belize. Primary schooling doesn't even touch on world history. English, Spanish, writing, basic math, reading, basic country history. From what I gather, the curricula is much the same in Mexico. My students here, all graduate students, have no idea who any of the major women in their history are. And judging from the comments, and talk page (1 million hits in newspapers is a joke ), it is clear there is no desire to improve the list, rather it appears obstacles to inclusion are being raised. I was taken aback by the idea that significance would be based on fame, money or the number of sources. None of that has anything remotely to do with significance in history. SusunW (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Poor old Joan of Arc only gets 73,200 on Google News but Elizabeth II just makes it with 1,080,000. So she should be OK!--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, making the obstacles impossible to overcome is the way you reinforce the biases without appearing to be biased. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Rose Rosenberg

 * Hi Susun! I am beginning to collect biographical material for Rose. I will keep you updated. It is irrelevant obviously if she is or is not a relation of mine - however distant - as she would make an excellent article and I have always deeply admired her. It is odd that such a personality, female, powerful, yet lost to history, should have been mentioned to me from a young age by family members. I do believe there is a blood relationship, however distant. However, this point is irrelevant, and pales into comparison with the importance of creating an article about her. She is arguably one of the most notable of the personalities of the Women in Red list, although I am unsure if she has been added yet. For nearly 50 years I have perceived Rose to be Auntie Rose, and if there is a family relationship or not, (I suspect there is) she will always be family to me. I will feed back biographical info as I discover it, and will get it over to you. Her birthdate is uncertain, and I suspect she may have chopped off ten years of her age. Also, I think her place of birth may be uncertain. In one source she is mentioned as being born in Stamford Hill, yet other sources mention her birth in the East End of London. The claim that she was of Baltic origins is dubious, as is the claim that she was of a landowning family that had fallen on hard times. Jewish families were certainly unlikely to have been extensive landowners at that period and locale. Her father was a tailor. I have found her entries to Who's Who in the timeframe of the early 30's. Thanks for your interest, and in this compelling forgotten woman. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's midnight here in southern Mexico, but I'll be back at it tomorrow. Several clippings said she was friends with Ishabel MacDonald, so I put a search in for Ishabel MacDonald, Rose Rosenberg, and this came back. Knowing she was Miss Rosenberg, I assumed she was Mrs. Hoenig. That yielded this so... she was born around 1901? Anyway, I can go back to newspapers tomorrow, but with a birth/death date, we can begin the article. Still would like to have more details, but we can always add stuff as we find it :) SusunW (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have we set up a draft page, and Susun? I can start working on it today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, User:SusunW/Rose Rosenberg SusunW (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh jot! She has a bio in ODNB! Woot!!!!!!!!!!!!! SusunW (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Superb! Fast work too. Well done! Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a stickler for gathering sources before I begin. If I determine that there are adequate sources to produce a comprehensive biography, I have already read enough that it is a pretty simple process to write it and input the citations. I have taken it live. If there are better photos, the "fair use" one can always be replaced. She needs links to Ishbel MacDonald and Ramsay MacDonald's articles. SusunW (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, Thanks . I love discovering women who have been left out but who were impactful in their times :) She was fascinating! For me, learning something myself is as important as writing the article. SusunW (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia editing guide on Commons
I have just come across. It seems to be very well presented, offering good advice to newcomers. Perhaps you could draw on it for your own guidelines. Maybe we should include it somewhere on WiR. (cc )--Ipigott (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's great, . I've added it as a link in its entirety to our guide, as it give editing markups. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thought you would like it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It has screenshots, which is always helpful. I didn't want to use tons of them in our document and it doesn't address the issues one faces in writing about women, but it's a really helpful guide, IMO. The more info we can give to people to write better articles the better. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , this is a great find! I'm helping our history museum set up an editathon and I can totally use this. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * did you also notice that I put that how to on editathons in our essay section. That might also be helpful :) SusunW (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Susun! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your guidance
Hello. I did not see your response before I posted mine. Thank you for the response! Based on your comments, I did some more edits to Mindy Carlin, mainly deleting extraneous information and tweaking wording to be more encyclopedic. Carlin has been in the news somewhat frequently, some only for brief mentions, but other times, she is quoted or accepting an award. For additional notability, I've uncovered that since its start in 2009, she has been the representative of (from what I can tell from researching the chambers), a large partnership involving many different chamber's of commerce and the Virginia General Assembly in the state of Virginia. Can you help guide me with improving encyclopedic tone? I appreciate your time! I am enjoying (for the most part) adding to the wealth of knowledge on Wikipedia! Thsmi002 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I also had another question related to this article. I just uncovered that Fairfax County Public Schools has an operating budget of $2.5 billion. I had no idea it was that much! Anyhow, one of the sections in the Carlin article is about the budget task force. Would it be relevant to include an approximate of how large the budget they were working with was? I could see how for smaller school systems, this would not be as "impressive" but with this amount, it seemed to me that it would be worthy of a mention. I'm interested in your thoughts!

Also, I forgot to mention, thank you for your research in reference to my other article. I will take a look at those sources and see if they can be/should be included. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I hope the sourcing helps. Sorry for the delay, am consulting with contractors today so on and off WP. While you can string together "mentions" to create notability, the problem with using her own words is that they have not been verified with any other source. She is in business, so promoting her services is part and parcel of her presentation. It isn't a good or bad thing, but it isn't the same as a neutral source. Same with using internal data from the chamber site. They are driving business development, so their information is, while not partisan, presented for that purpose. If I mentioned the budget figures at all, and I probably would not, I would couch it as multi-billion dollar budget or something like that. The issue with using the figure is that it appears notability for her is being derived from the size of the school budget. In other words, lots of people deal with large budgets and are not notable by WP standards, financial managers, city treasurers, etc. (Disclosure: I mostly write about dead people to avoid the whole BLP issue. If I am writing about a living person, my question to myself is "Will this person's impact be remembered in 30-50-100 years?") SusunW (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello SusunW: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –   Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


 * Thanks . Hope you stay safe and have fun. We are celebrating Hanal Pixan. Waiting for my Pib|(es) to arrive. It's sort of like a giant tamale baked in banana leaves underground . Here, there isn't anyone coming to take away sweets, rather people arriving to share memories of ancestors and the savory food. Pib is the traditional dish for the holiday. I kinda love the custom of honoring the dead. :) SusunW (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again
I would like to view this article to see whether the page creator cited the subject's title correctly. Would you be able to clip it for me? Thanks. Hanal Pixan sounds interesting! Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a wonderful holiday. Quite reverent. Lots of shrines set up all down the streets with photographs of ancestors and their favorite foods, flowers, candles, etc. Processions walk down the streets paying homage. On the clippings, I am not sure if you will be able to read it. Basically the whole page, several articles are dedicated to Hoblitzelle. I snipped it in two pieces to see if that works for you., . If that isn't readable, I can snip it further. I looked here but the Amarillo Daily News there only goes through 1938. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to do this. Unfortunately, it's too small to read. I'm going to go ahead and ask the page creator to resolve the discrepancy I found in the article.
 * It's really nice that you're part of a whole group that observes this celebration. I read the Wikipedia article and thought that some of the skeletal decorations look contrived. What do the living people think about it? No one wants to die, but perhaps they feel a bit comforted knowing that when their time comes, other people will pay homage to them in this way? Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In other parts of Mexico, it is a more party atmosphere. Here, it follows the Mayan tradition of reverence. The face painting is almost professional quality, as are the little sugar skulls. Try these, , Those are for the left hand article. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Much clearer, thank you!! Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome :) SusunW (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Drafts
Hi Susun, are you competing for prizes or just loosely? I did remove some entries which I thought were done in October, but if they were drafts and only moved to the mainspace in November they're welcome, so please add them to the main list or restore them if you're competing. :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All those were October files. And if I can help WiR get resources I am competing, but not in the sense of with anyone else. I write the way I write. They won't be stubs, so many people will create more articles than me. But I'm mostly focusing on the Caribbean, so my hope is to get a lot of quality coverage there. SusunW (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Quality is good!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Aline Hanson
Sure, I'll take a look. I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but should be free ere long and will see what I can cook up. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoo. That was a marathon. But I think I've created about everything necessary. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you sooooooo much, . I tried searching tons of different ways but honestly, as you saw, could come up with hardly any categories specific to St. Martin. I added her successor to the presidential category, though his article is only 2 sentences and needs tons of work. It will have to wait for another day, as the World Contest is on my plate. SusunW (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, nothing wrong with a stub. The more, the merrier, say I. Happy to be of help - happy contest-ing! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)