User talk:SusunW/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Sonia Alconini

So jazzed to see your article about Sonia Alconini as one of her research areas focuses on the Kallawaya, which was my first DYK article. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Rosiestep I am still hoping to find sufficient candidates to complete the task of at least one good article from each of the countries of the Americas. When searching for Bolivian scientists I found both her and "bat woman" Kathrin Barboza Marquez. I'm not sure there are enough sources for either to take them to GA, but Alconini might make it. The issue is whether substantially the sources end up about her work rather than her. But totally fascinating, I agree. :) SusunW (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Antonina Lebedeva for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• DGG nice of you to put this one up for discussion. I could have proposed that it be merged with the article on the 586th, but see that you didn't create it. BirgittaMTh perhaps since you speak Russian and have been curious as to why articles on English Wikipedia are deleted if they are on Russian Wikipedia, you might be able to help with sourcing on the file? SusunW (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what is needed... I tried to make my point (not delete) on that discussion page (unless I missed some bloody template or thing wikipedia is obsessed with and I never got hang of). And had a look on russian article about that lady (female comerade), it seems to be referenced good and proper. And I checked guidelines; sources for article need not be in same language as article, nor available online. So, literally, what's good enough for russians should be good enough for americans. :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

BirgittaMTh I do not know DGG and do not want to speak for him, but as far as I can tell he is one of those who believes that rather than improve a file, it should be deleted. You will see on the conversation with Nechayeva, User talk:SusunW#Speedy deletion nomination of Claudia Nechayeva, the argument was that she was not notable. I neither concurred with his assessment, nor felt that a speedy deletion was the proper venue to judge notability. Based upon what he stated, though it is not within Wikipedia GNG policy, only "those who received a highest-level award" should be included. He also felt the sourcing was inadequate to qualify as a RS, which may well be true if his assessment of them is correct. But not speaking Russian puts me in a difficult place to judge the sources. Fortunately on the debate of Lebedeva, it looks like there are Russian speakers who know that there are other sources and can possibly add those to the file so that it is well referenced. SusunW (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried a little experiment last night: I went to ruWP, and using random page, looked for articles without an enWP equivalent (they almost always had no equivalent in the fr or de WP either). (I can read a little Russian, but I did supplement it with Google translate) About half of them were for places in Russia that would certainly be notable here, and would warrant translation, & where the translation would be very easy. Another group were Russian political or military people, almost all of whom would be notable here by the usual standards (for example generals, members of the Duma, etc.). Some were technical topics which didn't exactly match ours. A few were shows on Russian TV, and a few were he sort of local topic which is considered notable in a particular culture. Looking in the other direction, it's similar--except that the enWP also has much wider coverage of topics from Europe and Latin America and Asia than any one of encyclopedia , as more people are likely to write about their own country's important topics in English, which has greater international reach.

There are established special practices in each encyclopedia . In the enWP, we consistently reject articles on soldiers who died in WWII unless they have won one of the 2 highest ranks of military awards, (or meet other requirements) -- for the US Armed Services, that's defined as the vMedal of Honor at the first level; and at the second level multiple awards of the (Army) Distinguished Service Cross, Navy & Marine Corps) Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, and Coast Guard Cross and nothing else, not even the Distinguished Flying Cross. (there may be possible name changes of precursors to these awards. I see the ruWP page r:ru:Википедия:Кавалеры высших наград государства; from our table at Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union, I think that would correspond to Hero of the Soviet Union and repeated awards of the Order of the Red Banner and the Order of Lenin (for those that are military), though the correspondence doesn't seem exact.

Certainly the members of the Soviet Air Fore who died in combat in WWOI deserve commemoration , and all the more so for members of special units of historic nature (and she has a street named in her honour), but not necessarily in an encycopedia . analogously in the US someone of her accomplishments would have at least a memorial tablet in their home town--but again, not appropriate for an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation DGG, as I said, I would not speak for you. We will continue to disagree about the requirements for inclusion. GNG is the standard, not MIL, nor ATHLETE, nor any of the other pages. If any subject has significant coverage in reliable sources it doesn't matter one whit what their contributions have been (which is why, sigh, there are pages on Kardashians, Hiltons, socialites, pornstars, murderers, et al). On the other hand, Wikipedia's philosophy is much more inclusive than traditional encyclopedias have been. I focus on adding women, minorities and people from non-English wiki to English wiki to expand our encyclopedia to more represent the diversity of accomplishments of our world. We no longer live in a world where the elite are all that matters and where they get to direct how history is told. The internet has made sure of that and I, for one, am glad that our knowledge has expanded beyond that narrow world view. All these pilots are required to have is significant coverage and significance is a discussion of depth, not length. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kathleen I. Pritchard

Hi, I was thinking of nominating this article for DYK. But I can't find the fact from Reuters in the source. I found a link to citation metrics, but how do we know she's among the most cited researchers? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yoninah I know she's there because I looked her up, but it's a weird database. If you go Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thomson-Reuters most cited scientists and look it up on the link that says the Thomson Reuters list of highly cited researchers (the one that says complete list is broken), you will find her. If you press on her name, you get that database link I posted. I don't know if that makes any sense, but you'll understand what I mean if you look at it. SusunW (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I added another reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah fabulous! and THANKS for the link to the 2014 PDF. Why didn't they release 2015 in that format? Hmmm. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably because 2015 isn't over yet. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

{Yoninah Brilliant deduction! That hadn't even occurred to me. I always check "what links here" to avoid orphan files and one of my scientists had a link to that page. So, I did several of them, and there is even a category, but I know of no other way to cite them, unless one can find another source to verify since that database is "rolling." SusunW (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ulrike Beisiegel

Hi SusunW, I just nominated another of your articles for DYK. In the interests of increasing exposure for women in science during the editathon, I looked through most of the new articles on the Women in Red/Meetup 4 talk page, but found that most of them are either too short or not well-written. Yours, however, are consistently well written, well researched, and properly cited. Keep up the great work! Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Really appreciate it, Yoninah. Was thinking about nominating Beisiegel, Catherine Feuillet and Gloria Lim, I am torn between creating them and nominating them for DKY. Feuillet's work is huge, but will be controversial if she does complete the sequencing ... GMO wheat and all. Lim's work collecting all those species was tossed, can you even imagine? At least her work exists, though I suspect it must be in Malay, as I didn't find many English publications. So much to do, so little time. ;) SusunW (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Alldredge

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Riobamba Club

Hi SusunW. Looks like great minds think alike. I saw Dr Blofeld's notice on the DYK talk page and have spent quite a few hours researching an article about the Riobamba, which I called Riobamba (nightclub) in keeping with existing page titles like Copacabana (nightclub). I just noticed that you created the same page under a different name. I'm wondering if we can do a bold merge, which seems to be appropriate under the circumstances? Yoninah (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah Dr. B apparently posted it on several pages and I didn't see your post, nor you mine. You know I don't have the technical skill to merge them, so honestly, whatever you want to do is fine. And yes, Great minds...it was the first one that jumped out at me. SusunW (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it tomorrow (it's almost 4 am here). And I'd like to submit it to DYK, with you and me as co-creators, to help build the Frank Sinatra centenary set on December 12. Yoninah (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah Very cool. It is amazing to me how much completely different information we got. I am always amazed at the variances in search engines from one place to the next. I can usually open things someone else found, but cannot get them to come up on a basic search. I've actually tested phrases as I travel back and forth between Belize, Mexico and the US and there really are totally different results. Thanks for your help with it. I can now go back to scientists. :) Sleep well. SusunW (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Violeta Chamorro

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Do try an alt hook if you like. I have found an image on Flickr which I have requested. (est 10% chance) Victuallers (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Very cool, Victuallers I was hoping it would get nominated, but since I already have a list I am begging for help with getting nominated over at WikiProject Women in Red, I didn't. Thanks ;) SusunW (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Thank you for creating this article! Although it's currently at AFD but I hope it will soon result "keep". Keep up the good work! Jim Carter 13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jim Carter I did four of these the same day. Lost the first one because it was nominated for speedy and not allowed to be discussed. Hopefully the others now, with confirmation that the community believes they are notable will be enough to dissuade the others from being nominated. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hank Sanicola

Hi Susun, can you find a bit more in Newspapers.com on him? Enough for DYK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld Okay, I think I got you there 1600 chars. Gotta take my houseguests for their medical stuff. Not sure when I'll be back, but sometime later. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Susun. much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Jalisco

[1] — kwami (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So sad that it must go to that point. You do get that exactly what I thought would happen has. The English-speaking press made a big whoopla saying it was a done deal. Pressure evaporated. Everything went back into limbo. Or snail pace, at any rate. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kathrin Barboza Marquez

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kakani Katija Young

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science

Don't worry - you haven't worn out anything. :-)

I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done - no trouble at all. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything for you. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Beverly Loraine Greene

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Malé Friday Mosque

Can you have a look at this Template:Did you know nominations/Malé Friday Mosque for further editing and suggest an Alt hook?Nvvchar. 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. It will be later today. Still have my houseguests and life is a wee bit crazy right now, but I'll do it ;) SusunW (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nvvchar got to it earlier than I thought I might. See what you think. SusunW (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. It is nice;y edited. Pl suggest a hook.Nvvchar. 01:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Done. SusunW (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nvvchar I did, and if you look at history, it shows them, but they don't show up in the nomination??? I do not know what I didn't do? Can you fix it? SusunW (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nvvchar I finally got it to show up. DYK page is behaving really oddly for me and there is some strange character at the bottom of the nomination, but I'm afraid to move it. Anyway, hopefully you will be good to go now. SusunW (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Grace Oladunni Taylor

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kathleen I. Pritchard

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SusunW. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Angkor Wat Marathon.
Message added 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Human3015^TALK  19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Anupama Kundoo

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhonda Patrick

Thank you, Susun, for your work on the article and your participation in the discussion on its acceptability. As DGG seems to be an expert on notability, I have invited him to provide the names of at least some of the thousands of notable women scientists he would like to see covered on Wikipedia. Keilana and Megalibrarygirl may also be interested in this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott for your constant support. IMO, and it is only that, DGG is no expert. From our many exchanges (he doesn't seem to discuss or converse) he has definitions of inclusion that don't exist anywhere in WP guidelines. Military must be excluded "unless they have won one of the 2 highest ranks of military awards" and now this that only "the most notable scientists" should be included. When I have questioned why then, WP allows in celebrities, socialites, porn stars, murderers etc. who meet GNG by virtue of having been covered in reliable, independent sources, over time, he disengages. The phrase that people must meet GNG OR other guidelines seems to be meaningless to him, and even more disconcerting to me, he is apparently an admin and on the arbitration committee and lacks this understanding. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that DGG seems to have had a lot of influence over other editors on Wiki, too, so his opinion on notability has affected other users. I find that more often than not, I am on the other side of the issue from him... not only on AfD, but I disagree with him about Kirkus reviews, for example. He's a librarian (I think) but we come from different places: he's more old school and conservative than I am. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I must say I was rather surprised to see that the women's biographies he has created did not seem to me to match such rigorous criteria for notability, even after other editors had contributed improvements. See, for example, Julia Santos Solomon and Yvonne Kroonenberg.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be an interesting study of those who nominate for AfD and participate regularly to see how many articles they write or that live up to the standards they purport to uphold. My spot checking, shows quite a wide gap. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been the major person fighting for years to get increased coverage of academics. I have been the major person fighting to get book reviews accepted as significant coverage (I supported using Kirkus until they lost respectability). If you want to destroy the attempt to actually include more women or other people in the academic world, then the best way is to try to make articles on the borderline ones. It's just the same way as making articles on borderline companies has made it harder to establish any articles on companies in some fields.

You've misinterpreted some of my other standards. The military one for is for those where the notability is dependent on medals,and its what MILHIS says, . Once can also be notable as a commander, or in other ways, and I accept all that group's criteria, which are m better thought out than most WP wikiprojects. I absolutely do not think that only the most notable scientists should be included. All notable scientists should be. I accept the standard of the academic world in judging this, which is ranki of thep osition and the university. I'd gladly accept most Associate professors, but I lost this argument years ago, and consensus is that usually it has to be full.

Tho most of my experience has been at Princeton, I have also worked at Rutgers, Brooklyn College, and LIU. That pretty much covers the spectrum .

Your article examples are not to the point: Santos is notable not as an academic but a visual artist; Kroonenberg has an article in the nlWP, whose standards I respect.

When arguing , there is no point making comparison with porn stars or athletes. The people whop care about those fields go their own way. The balance of WP reflects the interests of the people who work here, for better or worse. I agree with you completely that we have far too many athletes--Porn stars has had a recent purge--it used to be much worse.

Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia . I will therefore oppose any attempt of puffery, and this is my major concern these days. To some extend, it does conflict with my former concentration on inclusionism. I regret it, but I think it necessary for the integrity of the encycopedia .

We will do better cooperating than fighting. Please see [2]. I can think of only 1 or 2 people at WP who will enter into a longer discussion than I. But there are always going to be differences in individual cases. I generally will not fight any one case too hard, win or lose. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DGG I don't fight nor war. It is pointless. My previous experiences with you have not indicated you were interested in cooperation or even conversation. But, I will AGF that you intend to do that moving forward. You see a totally different Wikipedia than I do. I have looked at nearly 5000 articles over the past 2 months and see very little attempt to document those that are truly noteworthy. Wiki's RS guideline is clearly tilted toward celebrity and the "deletionist" crowd has little understanding of actually weighing a source. Add to that the elitists who only want to include the top tier who have already been written about and we have an extremely lopsided view of the world. That the most prolific woman cancer researcher in the US is reduced to a bio of 4 sentences is disheartening. IMO, coaching new editors and helping them develop skills is far more beneficial to the encyclopedia in the long run for its growth and improvement than this incessant push to delete. I've given up entirely on changing the guidelines, the small group who yell loudest will always control the discussion. SusunW (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

which person do you have in mind--I'll be glad to look at her article--in terms of notability, I assume you mean most highly cited, because that's what WP:PROF is about. My views on the RS guideline with respect to notability are I think well known: I think the GNG is close to useless. One major accomplishment of mine here is to secure the acceptance of WP:PROF as a totally independent alternate standard--it was not so accepted when I started, and you;ll still see occassional challenges. I wish we couldhave similarly objecticve standards in other fields also. I dislike the GNG for the same reason you do--the way the media work have corrupted it into celebrity. We do have one countervailing policy: NOT TABLOID, and I have used it on occasion with variable success. However it is necessary to be realistic, and work within what people here will accept. The interpretations of policies can gradually shift,and over 8 years I have seen many of the shift in a more rational direction. If you'd like to help shift the interpretation of WP:PROF to include a lower tier, by all means try, but expect that you will lose the argument much of the time. I try to pick cases at a level where I have about a 2/3 chance of success in an individual case, and gradually we build up precedent. I have found it best to do it gently. I have found it very necessary not to push to hard when I lose a particular instance--there will always be another. I have also found it best not to work most of the away from the mainstream; it increases credibility when one is trying to change the direction. My parents taught me Lenin's principle that one cannot expect to make revolutions working within the system. I worked outside it here once, when I tried to help Citizendium get started. That failed, but I'll try again sometime. In the meantime I work within the WP expectations. It does indeed take great patience to work that way, and I am very aware of the danger of being induced into accepting a bad system.

There are good reasons for deletions. First, there is a bottom ayer of utterly unacceptable work submitted in the early years, and we will take years more to remove it. In the mean time, it's crucial not to add to it. Second, the less notable a subject, the more likely the article is to be promotional, either deliberately or because there's nothing much else to say. Promotionalism will destroy the encycopedia . If we become a medium for advertising, we;re no better than google. If people want to publish their CVs, they don't need us. If PR offices want to announce the excellence of their faculty or their company, they have more appropriate places to do it. Experience shows they're not particular good judges because they're committed to whomever they work for. Third, if people are to write new articles and maintaining the life of WP depends on new people coming to do just that, they need to have good examples. Leaving bad articles in lets them be used as models. (Academic bios are relatively clean, fortunately, but some fields are mainly composed of bad models).

Cooperating does not always mean agreeing. I do not promise to agree with anyone, but to use my own judgment. When people ask me questions, I give the answer I think best, not always the answer they might hope or expect. If it will bother you when we disagree, then there is indeed no point in arguing. When people can do it dispassionately, then argument can be productive. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

DGG I have no problem with disagreement as long as it is civil. But I will not get into a virtual shouting match with anyone. I fade away when that happens. Again, you have a different opinion than me of whether things can be changed here. I think the small group that yells loudest doesn't want change and will not change. It's clearly a "good-old-boy" network that has been in place for years and just like those gentlemen's clubs where such networks first flourished, there seems to be a system of grooming the heirs-apparent. I've read enough of the "non-discussion choose an acronym" discussions to see the cronyism and drama and rarely participate in any of it except the occasional AfD, which does not seem focused, IMO on old unsourced materials. Instead, there is a push on new, still-being-written articles from what I can tell. And I do think it is sheer laziness not to try to fix an article before slapping a delete notice on it, or worse, lack of knowledge of what is notable, in which case you should not be allowed to nominate for deletion to begin with. The article on Elizabeth M. Ward is here. I found literally hundreds of articles, newspapers, journals, etc. that she had written; virtually nothing about her at all and zero, except a brief mention about her 21 year tenure at NIOSH. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If I do yell and you catch it, please let me know, because I almost certainly didn't intend to, but nobody has a perfect ear for the tone of their remarks. I sometimes do try to go through a group of older articles, but the new ones force themselves to our notice; this does cause an imbalance. If there's a particular group you'd like to help be clean, let me know, but I have found it counterproductive to try too many at a time. As for Ward, I'll see what I cab do for the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

DGG is far from being a deletionist overall though, in fact for years I think he was one of our strongest inclusionists. Last few years though I've been baffled at his support for certain deletions at times and reinterpretation of the guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ulrike Beisiegel

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Today

St Cecilia's Day

A Boy was Born

Music in your ears and heart! (in a box) - Look for the women-in-red-boxes, and thank you for all you do there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt :D they are lovely! Hope you are doing well. SusunW (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Doing better, thank you for health wishes! - Just added Beisiegel to P:DE! - I created the boy on Britten's centenary, DYK? Wish the article could carry the image and Britten's title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yay! I just was amazed that there was no article about her. Always surprises me ;). I wish that we had images on all of the articles, but it is what it is. I have really enjoyed learning about these scientists. Next month's editathon will be harder for me, religion by its very nature is a POV topic. Mayhaps there are musical women who wrote religious music that might make it easier? And I have been sending you all positive energies for health and happiness for months. SusunW (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Page created in your userspace

I think the user tried to leave you a message with this - unsure if you saw it: User talk:SusunW/ Saarah Hameed Ahmed. Regards. Samsara 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Samsara Thank you. No I did not see it and am not even sure where that talk page is? Since the note is unsigned, not even sure who to reply to. But clearly, one cannot make changes to a file without documentation. Wikipedia's guidelines are quite straightforward in that information must be documented and NPOV, (no point of view). If the documentation is removed from the web, or if the person making the claims finds citations that someone else is the first pilot, certainly the information should be corrected. But, I just checked all the citations on the file and they are still working, valid links. SusunW (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this, just happened to see it. Thought you might be able to do sth with it. Cheers. Samsara 04:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally understood that Samsara I would never have seen the message. I replied at length hoping that whoever wrote the message would see the response ;) Again, thanks for your assist. SusunW (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that would have been Shahpoor. Samsara 04:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I assumed as much and put pretty much the same message on that talk page asking if it was them that wrote it. I had reverted the earlier deletions made to the file as the assertions made were not documented. SusunW (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy it for future reference and deleted the page as a test. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear SusunW, Saarah Hameed Ahmed is not India's first women muslim pilot.. I personally know atleast 3 other muslim pilots who are 20 years older than her and Captains in Indian Airlines for over 15 years. This are fake posts and are being taken down by the companies that put them up... e.g. http://www.siasat.com/news/faced-brunt-islamophobia-indias-first-female-muslim-pilot-872652/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahpoor (talk • contribs)

Drmies Thanks! You know all the technical part of making wiki work is outside my realm. ;) Writing, documenting, I have down. Programming, code, technobabble, uhhhhhh no. SusunW (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Susun, I'm not much different, except that I know how to delete. For all other questions I rely on the kindness of strangers. Best, and keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's one more thing I learned to do as an admin: Wikipedia:Revision deletion just allowed me to really remove some revolting racist commentary someone saw fit to add to the article of that young kid that was shot in Chicago, sixteen times, by a police officer. If regular editors saw what some people see fit to add to Wikipedia they'd be revolted. Sorry, I'm letting off steam for a second--I just saw the video of the kid getting shot on MSNBC. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I get it. When I was given that rollback thing, I didn't think I would use it ever. I have only sparingly used it and am appalled and amazed at what some people think is amusing, or even harmless pranksterism. I have to think of it that way as I cannot remotely imagine that anyone would really believe some of the things I have seen written. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SusunW. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Angkor Wat Marathon.
Message added 10:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Human3015^TALK  10:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 you are GTG! Happy Thanksgiving! SusunW (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Susun . Same to you. --Human3015^TALK  14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mitter Bedi

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with Olivia Gude... the article is no longer up for deletion! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WOOOT! Thank you Megalibrarygirl! I don't think I've ever seen an AfD close with only two respondents, but it was so clear from her multiple awards that she should be kept. :) We make a pretty durn good team. SusunW (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)