User talk:Wozal

Thanks
Thank you for correcting some of my recent categorisations. Some of my choices were poor, you were right to revert them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Phoebe A. Hearst Fine Arts Magnet School
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Phoebe A. Hearst Fine Arts Magnet School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. BangJan1999 21:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: DJ Delete
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of DJ Delete, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: NME citation suggests possible notability. I would take this to other deletion methods. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Rice School of Architecture faculty has been nominated for merging
Category:Rice School of Architecture faculty has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Emptying categories
Hello, Wozal,

While an article might shift out of one category and into another, please do not remove all of the pages in a category so it is tagged for speedy deletion, CSD C1. This is called "emptying categories out of process" and is considered disruptive editing, especially if it is done on a large scale to many categories. If you believe that a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please put in a nomination at Categories for Discussion as you can see in the message above this one. This way, other editors can consider the changes you want to make and can arrive at a consensus. This is even more important than other procedures with articles (AFD) or redirects (RFD) because all categories exist in a hierarchy and what affects one category can affect others. For example, if there is a decision to do away with one category that divides individuals by gender, it can affect other, similar categories that also divide individuals by gender.

So, please, before taking on any major recategorization projects, bring them to CFD and post your suggested changes. And if you are interested in Wikipedia's categorization structures, I encourage you to review other editors' proposals at CFD and make your own judgments about whether or not the nominations are an improvement or not. We always need more thoughtful participants involved in deletion discussions. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Liz,
 * My apologies and thank you for this helpful note! Would it be correct to assume that past consensus on categories isn't always an indicator for similar categories? (IE: If School X had Y Category eliminated, would School Z have Y category eliminated or would that go through the same process as school X?
 * 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Wozal (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Wozal, and thanks for adding the Women in Red tag to your user page. It's good to see you intend to help us chip away at the gender gap. If you would like to become a full member of the project, you can join under "New registrations" on this page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following up on this, Wozal, and welcome to Women in Red. As you have not yet created any biographies of women, you might find it useful to look through our Essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Consensus about college and university rankings in the lede?
You've made several edits removing college and university rankings from the lede of articles, writing in your edit summary that "General Wikipedia consensus is that this wording should only go in the lead for universities that are ranked in the top 10 by the major publications (see other comparably ranked institutions)." Where is this consensus documented? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @ElKevbo, I'm going to self-revert soon unless I can find the original source. Rereading things, I feel that I may have misread things. I first noticed the wording here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cornell_University&action=history
 * and some conversations of the like here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_California,_Berkeley/Archive_7#Is_Berkeley_a_top_10_university?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Chicago/Archive_3#Prestigious_Ranking
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh -> I'd like to know where this user is also getting this information which seem to be stated matter of fact way/
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Rankings
 * and lastly, I think those above with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:College_and_university_article_advice#Draft_proposal_to_clarify_appropriate_statements_about_prestige_and_rankings_in_the_lede made me made misunderstand your original post.
 * Wozal (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know that there is an explicit, documented consensus on this issue. I would really like for there to be one which is why I'm considering an RfC although as you can see from what I wrote on that advice Talk page I'm leaning toward simply requiring multiple, high quality sources that explicitly support a statement in the lede instead of requiring a specific ranking.
 * I just wanted to check with you to see if I had missed a discussion somewhere that had already addressed this. ElKevbo (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Athgo
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Athgo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is 15 years old. Please use AFD to discuss deletion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Ivanvector,
 * Thanks for the prompt notice. In the past, I've seen articles 10-15 years old get deleted through speedy deletion. By chance, can you provide me with a link to the guidelines saying that articles above a certain age won't get deleted through speedy deletion? If this is a new policy, I'd really like to familiarize myself with the age range to avoid unneccesssary backlog for you and other admins!
 * Thanks,
 * Wozal (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll admit there is no policy that says that speedy deletion can only apply to recently created pages (excepting WP:R3). In this instance, the article has existed for a long time with basically the same content, with numerous editors having contributed to and reviewed it during that time, including a few names I recognize as people active in anti-spam and deletion, yet nobody has suggested that it should be deleted. Therefore, it seems to me that deletion might be controversial, and it ought to be subject to discussion where the other contributors could give their opinion, i.e. WP:AFD. Speedy deletion is for very obvious cases where nobody could reasonably object, and I don't think that bar is met here, that's all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Details
Please how do I add templates for personal details to an article Derick CO (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Derick CO, template information can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates Wozal (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean infoboxes Derick CO (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes Wozal (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Washington University in St. Louis
Hello Wozal. I am letting you know that in the category sporting_affiliations, you allowed to enter more than one conference. If you check the Massachusetts Institute of Technology they have six different sporting affiliations. University of Notre Dame has three including football, hockey Big Ten Conference and the main conference of the Atlantic Coast Conference. I would like to add that Washington University in St. Louis is an affiliate member of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin in the major sport of football. I hope you do not revert this edit. You may also check the California State University, Sacramento who has many affiliations including baseball and women's rowing. Please consider that it is allowed to have more than one entry for the sporting affilation(s) category. These entries may be football, hockey, lacrosse or any other sport. Please leave a response on your talk page. Dannyzk (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Dannyzk
 * Using your example of MIT, it appears that MIT is a fully-pledged member of all 6 conferences. It also appears that University of Notre Dame is also a fully-pledged member of the conferences listed.
 * Looking at the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin, it lists 9 affiliate members which it seems to distinguish from its other members. From what I can see, none of these universities had CCIW listed under their affiliations prior to your edit. It's the longstanding tradition of not including affiliated members in this case which leads me to believe this is likely something worth discussion to change. Per WP:ONUS, while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
 * Clicking around, I found the State University of New York Athletic Conference, which has one former member. Its infobox does not include the conference, but it is mentioned in the athletics section. The same seems to hold true for Old Dominion Athletic Conference and I'm sure it holds true for other conferences, especially at the D3 level where Sports tend not to be as dominating of a force as the D1 schools. Given the purpose of the infobox is to summarize information and per Help:Infobox, also aims to avoid trivial information. We have to ask how prevelant something is to include in the infobox. I don't neccessarily disagree that the content shouldn't be included but rather that it seems to be that the infobox seems to traditionally not include affiliate members. However, placement of the infobox can also be seen as WP:UNDUE depending on what's there and we'd have to consider what else this could possibly open up as well as what those finer details might be. For these reasons, I think it's worthwhile for you to start a conversation on this at Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice. Wozal (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wozal. I meant to say University of Notre Dame. They are an associate member of hockey in the Big Ten Conference, not a full member of that conference. California State University, Sacramento is an associate member of the Western Athletic Conference for baseball and an associate member of the American Athletic Conference for women's rowing. These are listed under sporting affiliations. The purpose of joining other conferences is to participate in sports not offered by your conference or to save money on travel costs. They may be a single sport conference such as ECAC Hockey or a conference with many sports. Washington University in St. Louis only plays in one varsity sport outside the conference and that is in football. Please consider that football, baseball and soccer are considered major sports. There is no difference in playing in a single sports conference or a multi sports conference for football or any other sport. Please reconsider adding football in the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin to the Washington University in St. Louis site. The information is true. Dannyzk (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: DanCherek (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Rollback granted
Hi Wozal. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AWozal enabled] rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

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

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

CCCU
Should universities in the CCCU category when they are already in a subcategory of the page? Many colleges are in a category for their college, which is already in the CCCU category. The CCCU category does not appear to be non-diffusing. WP:PARENTCAT. glman (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's the subcategory of the page. To me, it appears like EPON is being used and that while the article of each university should be placed accordingly, the category (which displays as a subcategory) of the school should not since those additional categories are not relevant to CCCU category.
 * An example:
 * Both New York City and Category:New York City fit well in Category:Cities in New York (state).
 * The article New York City is in Category:Populated places established in 1624, but this category is not necessarily relevant to the content of Category:New York City, so it should not be used on the eponymous category.
 * Taking this into account, the article's page should be listed but alumni would have nothing to do with CCCU as a whole.
 * Wozal (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will plan to remove the school categories from CCCU then! glman (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boxford, Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boston College Eagles ice hockey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Category:Wesleyan Female College (Wilmington)
Curious about your removal of a bunch of categories within Category:Wesleyan Female College (Wilmington). Is this category not meant to be included in those other categories? --Engineerchange (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Engineerchange,
 * To me, it reads as EPON. The school's wikipedia page should be categorized within those categories; the category of that school does not seem to be categorized within those schools. I believe this is done to minimize double categorizing the two as well as well as to avoid giving additional weight to certain schools when in the original category. Wozal (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, appreciate the reply. I tend to stay away from adding categories in Wikipedia because of the rules being a bit weird. --Engineerchange (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Erased Pat Wolff
I am wondering why you erased my addition to the Washington University in St. Louis article. you did not say in the edit summary. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bruxton,
 * Hello! Hope today finds you well and that you're keeping warm! Apologies in advance for the long message. I just want to make my thought process as transparent as possible as edit summaries are often limiting.
 * My original edit was based on adding and restoring non-university sources (which in part involved replacing those sources with non-university sources and getting rid of an overly crowded section. I was not targeting any specific people; simply looking at references and ensuring that they were secondary sources when possible since universities articles often have overused primary sources when a secondary source would be better suited for notability. There are times when primary sources are unavoidable for certain facts, but I'm a huge proponent of using secondary sources whenever a valid source exists. The original layout distinguished recent alumni from earlier graduates but made no mention of what those cut-offs were nor what made them distinguishable from other. From my scan of around 50 other pages, no other university's page distinguished between them. As such, this seemed like an easy way to combine those two paragraphs but required additional cutting or else the material in that section would seem undue.
 * Your original edit mentioned they were a professor emerita but under the faculty section, I imagine that a fair number of 900 faculty there, would likely also qualify for the same title if they were long-term faculty members there. Using Massviews, then seemed to be part of how to better distinguish someone who was notable but that number alone isn't enough.
 * Per WP:UNIGUIDE, which is often where larger talk consensus for universities happens and seems to be the standard for other institutions,
 * Noted people – This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni ) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.
 * Which then leads us to if using the company she founded, would we know what her company was? I imagine it does not have the same instant name recognition as those currently listed. While everything has at least 1 source now, I feel like there are still big weaknesses to the page. Part of it lies in the fact that a lot of the information on faculty members don't mention how long they were there for. There are adjunct members as well as visiting professors. At one point, I thought there was a minimum amount of years required to be flagged as a faculty member under Wikipedia's standards, but I can't seem to find that.
 * I also believe this page could perhaps be more inclusive if there were sections like this one to better show that faculty do have lives outside of academia both before and after.
 * Would be more than happy to collaborate with you as I think Pat Wolff's charity seems like it does excellent work even if not as known as other charities! Wozal (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Wozal! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Request to review an article
Greetings, I hope you are doing well. I am so respectful that you have the reviewing rights. I have an article for a Geneticist, Leon Mutesa, and I would appreciate it if you review it for me. Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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 14:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging