User talk:Knope7
February 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
 February events:
|
The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]
- Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you
DYK for Mamie Shields Pyle[edit]
On 1 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mamie Shields Pyle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mamie Shields Pyle was instrumental in winning the right to vote for women in South Dakota? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mamie Shields Pyle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mamie Shields Pyle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Amakuru (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Elena Kagan/GA1[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elena Kagan/GA1. I have finished the review. DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
March 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
   Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
|
Ruth Hanna McCormick[edit]
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ruth Hanna McCormick has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @TWofingered Typist:, thank you so much for your input! I greatly appreciate your thoughtful edits. Knope7 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. She was a remarkable woman. I enjoyed the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
Elena Kagan[edit]
Hi Knope7,
I was going to ask about the complete reversion of edits I made to the Elana Kagan page. The Wikipedia guidelines suggest against a lot of direct quotations from sources and so I was attempting to paraphrase some of these as well as add in additional information about her return to academia (adding in she was the first female dean of Harvard Law School), etc. I didn't understand the comment made with the reversions; was there something wrong with the source I cited?
Cheers Lbmchenry (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, @Lbmchenry:. I reverted your edit because the Elena Kagan article is under Good Article review, as you can see on the article talk page. The article does not have excessive quoting. I checked the source you added, and it didn't add anything new and it was not better than the source already included. While I generally don't have a problem adding an extra source, it is something the reviewer had previously made an issue. I felt your edit risked creating new problems in the review process without having a clear purpose. I hope you will continue to edit and learn as you go, but I have to watch what is being done on the Kagan article carefully to make sure it doesn't derail the process. Knope7 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ruth Hanna McCormick you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
April editathons at Women in Red[edit]
April 2019[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)
Your GA nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick[edit]
The article Ruth Hanna McCormick you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Ruth Hanna McCormick for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
DYK nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Ruth Hanna McCormick at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR![edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Suggest Bot[edit]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[edit]
Hi. I noticed that your original edit seemed slightly misleading, as the Dean of Harvard Law was likely asking the question “Why are you here, taking the place of a man”? to arm himself when in discussion with other members of the faculty of law about admitting women to Harvard. I have made an edit, trying to make that clear, but I have worded it poorly. I have great respect for your work on the page, and I see that you aim to be neutral in controversial discussions, so I thought I’d come and ask for some help with how to word it. It is made clear that the question that Griswold posed made lots of the women feel uncomfortable, but it’s also made clear that they have accepted that he posed the question only to gain insight- not to demonstrate disdain towards their admittance to the school. I’d much appreciate it if you’d be able to reword my edit, in such a way that does both of our edits justice. Thank you ~ElsevierAnatomy~ ElsevierAnatomy (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ElsevierAnatomy: Thanks for starting a discussion. I think I would push back on your framing a bit. I am less concerned with Griswold's intentions than I am with how the comments were perceived. It's nice that Ginsburg learned years later it was not intended to be unkind, but she has repeated the story often as something that she found off putting at the time. The story does also illustrate what she dealt with as one of the few women at Harvard. My idea is to push Griswold's explanation to the footnote. It's relevant, but to me it's not nearly as relevant as Ginsburg's experience. I'm happy to discuss this further. Knope7 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
My issue with relegating the Griswold perspective to the footnotes is that the footnotes are not commonly read. Wikipedia is a place to access information and is a place for everyone. I do believe it is slightly unfair to frame it with no context. It reads in such a way that the statement made by Griswold is seemingly made in order to show his disdain or disapproval of the admittance of women to Harvard Law School. It is widely agreed that this was not his aim, and he was aiming to defend their admittance to the school, so needed direct evidence from the female members about why they wanted to study law and what they would gain. It is unfair to Griswold to leave such a statement in the article without context- and I do make the argument that a footnote is not sufficient in mitigation, nor does it add any context. I understand the submission that the experience at the time of the comment is wholly important, and it should definitely be included, but the understanding now is that Griswold was not making the comment with any malicious intent, but in fact the opposite. It is my belief that the article as of now, and specifically that part, is misleading. If one were to ask the average person reading the page whether they thought the comment was made in order to express a negative opinion on the admittance of women to Harvard, I wholeheartedly believe that every single person would believe it was.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierAnatomy (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ElsevierAnatomy:, I don't think your response actually deals with the point I raised: Ginsburg's perception is what matters. She has told the story to illustrate how difficult it was to be one of the few female law students and how female law students needed to prove they belonged there. Again, Griswold's intention does not change the way the comment was perceived or the effect that it had on its audience. His attempts to provide an explanation later are a digression and that's why I think it is more appropriate for the footnote, if it is to be included at all. To further drive home that this story is not about Griswold, I'll point out that he is not mentioned by name. Only his title is mentioned. This is something that has been discussed on the article talk page before. Knope7 (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The statement "Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?" would appear to a the average person to mean “I believe that women are less entitled to a place at Harvard Law than men. I think that the statement and how it has been framed by you is misleading. It is right to make reference to feelings of discomfort at the time, as these feelings are very important and relevant to the experience of women during that period, but it is wrong to leave the quote without any context, leading it to read as though the Dean was devaluing their admittance. He was not doing that and RBG has made it clear that he was misunderstood. If RBG made it clear that his intentions were not to do so, it is important that they are included in the main text. You say that the story is not about Griswold, as he is not mentioned my name. That is surely a wholly meaningless statement. The mentioning of the Dean of Harvard Law and the inclusion of a comment like that, makes this about a figure of authority and the establishment being an oppressor of women and their rights and equality within education. Whilst the women were uncomfortable due to the comment, it wasn’t necessarily because they thought he was uncomfortable with them being admitted, it was possible that it was because whilst he essentially wasn’t against their admittance, they felt it wasn’t their place to make statements of ambition. This is due to their fear at the time, not his comment. I think that if we can’t come to a compromise on this, which would include the addition of some context on the main page, then it will have to be the talk page and then dispute resolution/ third opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierAnatomy (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add that your footnote “The Dean later claimed that he was trying to learn student’s stories” seems to show your opinion on this. RBG herself believed that people have misunderstood his comment. It is not as thought Griswold has claimed it and the women disagree. The women agree that his comment was innocent, and was posed not to show disdain, but to gain real insight. It is completely understandable that the women felt uncomfortable with the comment, but it was not because they thought that the comment was the Dean telling them that they should not be at Harvard Law, but because they did not know how to reply. Comments expressing ambition made by women were still not acceptable, which is absolutely relevant, but the comment itself was not malicious, and your quotation and wording of it is misleading as it is blatant in its attempt to make it appear so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierAnatomy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ElsevierAnatomy: First assume good faith. You are assigning motives to me, and I am asking you kindly not to do that. I don't agree that including Griswold's words is misleading and I think you are fighting against context that is not currently in the article. In my opinion, the article is written fairly. It uses Griswold's words, which have been often published and are not in dispute, but does not call him out by name or make any aspersions against him. Putting an explanation in the footnote is my suggestion for a compromise. Please feel free to start yet another discussion about this on the article talk page if you would like to try and change the consensus. 03:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I do assume good faith. “Yet another” suggests irritation or impatience on your part. The direct quotes mention Griswold but they also mention the context and they mention that his comments were not made maliciously. “I don’t agree that including Griswold’s words is misleading”. Complete straw man argument there, as I told you that including his words isn’t inherently misleading. Including his words without the context that they were made in and making them mean something different, is misleading. I, myself am growing tired of this discussion now as you seem to be looking for a way out of the discussion. It’s very frustrating, example being the straw man argument above, to see my argument being discarded. When looking on the RBG talk page, I only see those supporting my argument within the education subsection.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierAnatomy (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Three- Revert- Rule[edit]
Hi. I’d just like to forewarn you that any further edits on RBG page that revert my edit will be classed as edit warring and will be editing in bad faith according to Wikipedia policies. You have reverted my edit there times now, so no more reverts are allowed under the policy. Any more will likely lead to a block or another sanction. Please seek further advice from another editor or talk page to implement your edit. ElsevierAnatomy (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- You have removed properly sourced information without a justification or consensus. The conent should remain in the article pending any discussion on the article talk page. It was incorrect for you to undo my edit and you did tht twice. Please start a discussion on the artcile talk page as I have asked yoo to do multiple times and refrain from making further inaccurate statements about me and my editing. Knope7 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Try reading the rule and you’ll see that only only more than 3 reverts is classed as definitely breaking the rule.
The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]
- News and notes: An Action Packed April
- In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?
- Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
- Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art
- Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde
- Technology report: A new special page, and other news
- Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns
- News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?
- Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
- From the archives: Portals revisited
Jeannette Rankin[edit]
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jeannette Rankin has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Removing my revision on the Janet Reno page[edit]
Your argument for removing my edit was "The article covers this later on. The documents were turned over and the full House did not cite her for contempt. It's significant enough for the article but unnecessary for the lead." However, this is the issue that's covered at too small of a length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly is a topic that defines her life and career. The citations for this are included in my original edit. At the very least, it's absurd that the AG only ONE sentence in her entire page mentioning her contempt citation. It should be included in the lead and I would ask that you consider my opinion. Perhaps we can agree on her lead including this plus more information on her career, which can be discussed in the talk page section. Thanks! Kozak4512 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- The contempt vote is not the issue that defines her life and career. That assertion that this defines her is not believable nor supported by reliable sources. I have responded in greater length on the talk page. Knope7 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Mae Jemison[edit]
Please clarify why you are removing my edit, which has been fixed to eliminate bias. VicWOODHULL (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- I left several edit summaries. Note this is a WP:BLP and as such the material should be removed pending a consensus. Knope7 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I’m obviously aware she’s living. Do you mind pointing me to where the summaries are? VicWOODHULL (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Check the article edit history. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before wading into such contentious territory. As I indicated on the article talk page, your attempt to add criticism may force us to also include Jemison's own words and views. You maybe calling more attention to the content you find objectionable. Knope7 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Odd statement coming from feminist. You suggest I familiarize myself with how Wikipedia works before I can submit a relevant and non-biased edit? Or is that more of an elitist position... either way, she wouldn’t have been invited to the commencement had her views been known. It’s important that others know. It’s verifiable and true. At this point it’s a little unclear what your real issue with the edit is. VicWOODHULL (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't include abortion views for most people unless it is important to their public life. So far, you have failed to establish anything as a fact let alone establish why it is significant enough for an encyclopedia. There are a lot of places on the internet to voice your criticism of her speech and to let others know what you think of her speech. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You are attempting to add material that pushes a point of view without reliable sources, does not include at the BLP subject's own perspective or defense, and not establishing that this material is significant enough to include. The material you have proposed violates several well-established Wikipedia policies. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. If you would like to further that mission, you are more than welcome but you need to follow established policies. Knope7 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
June events with WIR[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nancy Pelosi[edit]
Hi there, Knope7. I was a bit taken aback by your summary deletion of Nancy Pelosi on WP:Women in Green. I think that at the very least, before deleting it, you could have discussed it with me on my talk page or raised your concerns on the WiG talk page. I take good note of your comments on the assessment here but your response there appeared to indicate that you did not in fact object to the GA assessment. In my opinion, when several editors get together to make significant improvements to an article, they should be given credit for their efforts. Deletion is tantamount to accusing them of insufficient scrutiny. I think it might be interesting to have reactions from Alanna the Brave and SusunW who are among the more active members of the WiG project. Up to now, in line with Dr. Blofeld's original intentions, I have been adding all deserving GA women's biographies to the achievements. If this is going to cause problems, maybe we should just stick to those WiR participants have worked on? (cc. StudiesWorld)--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting a discussion. Since a number of others have been pinged, this might be better suited for the project talk page rather than my talk page. I'm not aware of a firm policy on what to include as a recent success so I didn't see the harm in removing the article, particularly since as far as I could tell I was tbe only project member involved in the review in any capacity. From my perspective, it was a drive by nomination for an article I had long thought needed major work. I don't think I'm in a position to de-list but that doesn't mean I have no qualms about the article. It's more about being fair to the good faith reviewer and the process. My thinking in removing the article is the article was not promoted as part of out iniative and it's not a great example of the kind of effort typically put in to our nominations. IMO, if we want to endorse drive by nominatioms, we should do so carefully. Knope7 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
- Essay: Paid editing
- From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
DYK for Ruth Hanna McCormick[edit]
On 1 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Hanna McCormick, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that no woman was chosen as a major political party's nominee for the United States Senate until Ruth Hanna McCormick won her state's primary in 1930? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Hanna McCormick. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ruth Hanna McCormick), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Quarter Million Award[edit]
|
The Quarter Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Mae Jemison (estimated annual readership: 400,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC) |
FYI, as an uninvolved editor, I've verified the numbers and your contribution. Congrats! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Collaboration on Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin[edit]
Hey Knope7 -- I see you've gotten started on Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, and I wanted to let you know I'm still up for collaborating. How could I be of most help right now? Let me know what I can do. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Alanna the Brave: Thanks for the message! I think the souring needs to be improved, both to provide support for unsorced claims and to fill in facts missing from the article all together. Hopefully I'll have time in the next week or so to start diving in myself as well. Knope7 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
July events from Women in Red![edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
Ruth Bader Ginsburg[edit]
Hi There,
Regarding recent edit to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That section was not about Bush v Gore, it was about her role as a dissenter. I felt it was relevant to information about that role. I disagree that it is not significant based on the voluminous legal debates around Bush v Gore. It was significant enough that a national publication included it in its reporting years after the fact. Furthermore, I feel that it gives an important alternative viewpoint to the views expressed in the rest of the article (ie, the image of Ginsburg as a feisty fighter), which is important to the neutrality of the article. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you still think it should be left out. Schnapps17 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate discussion and I have thought about your comments. My opinion is that a lot is written about Ginsburg everyday and not every time she is mentioned in a national publication is significant. There are stories that are picked-up and run across several national publications that are not included because they passed quickly. I don't think criticism from an unnamed former law clerk mentioned in one national publication is that significant. To me the sentence added to the Ginsburg article lacked context as to what she changed and why. Criticism is fine but it does need context and where appropriate response from the subject's perspective. I'm not swayed by the fact that this anonymous opinion was published four years after the case. I'm not the arbiter of what to include in the article, but I would continue to argue that the article is stronger without this piece of anonymous criticism. Knope7 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Mae Jemison[edit]
On 21 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mae Jemison, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mae Jemison, the first black woman in space, worked at a Cambodian refugee camp in Thailand and was a medical officer for the Peace Corps before becoming an astronaut? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mae Jemison. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mae Jemison), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeannette Rankin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlastairJHannaford -- AlastairJHannaford (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin[edit]
The article Jeannette Rankin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jeannette Rankin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlastairJHannaford -- AlastairJHannaford (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin[edit]
The article Jeannette Rankin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jeannette Rankin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlastairJHannaford -- AlastairJHannaford (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things
September 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]
- News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings
- In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff
- Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users
- Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes
- News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
October Events from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 30 September 2019[edit]
- From the editors: Where do we go from here?
- Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup
- Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads
- News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green
- Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
November 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 October 2019[edit]
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
December events with WIR[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award[edit]
|
The Red Maple Leaf Award | |
| This maple leaf is awarded to Knope7 for creating or expanding three Canadian women's biographies during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 29 November 2019[edit]
- From the editor: Put on your birthday best
- News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?
- In the media: You say you want a revolution
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases
- Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker
- Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things
- Gallery: Winter and holidays
- Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews
- Essay: Adminitis
- From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited
January 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
|
The Signpost: 27 December 2019[edit]
- From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again
- News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages
- In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?
- Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki
- Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December
- Technology report: User scripts and more
- Gallery: Holiday wishes
- Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary
- From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report
Your GA nomination of Mamie Shields Pyle[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mamie Shields Pyle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Last word on 2020 Women in Green goals?[edit]
Hi Knope7 -- I'm hoping to launch the 2020 goals page for Women in Green tomorrow, but I wanted to check in with you again first, in case you hadn't seen the latest posts in the Talk page discussion. I know you had expressed concerns about possible backlash to a GAN review goal, but Sportsfan77777 has pointed out that many WikiProjects have members reviewing each other's GA nominations, and I think we can avoid any potential issues by making some ground rules like these clear to editors. We could give it a try this year, just to see how it goes. Please let me know what you think. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Alanna the Brave:, thank you for all of your hard work on putting together goals. I appreciate that I was able to voice my opinion, although it looks like I'm outnumbered. I don't have anything else to add, but I really do appreciate your reaching out. Thanks again! Knope7 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not a problem, Knope7 -- I'm always glad to have your thoughts/contributions, and I didn't want to push this through without you. I'll set up the new goals page now. Onwards and upwards! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Amy Poehler[edit]
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Amy Poehler has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Twofingered Typist:! I greatly appreciate your help improving this article. Knope7 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2020[edit]
- From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium
- News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia
- Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta
- Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019
- News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations
- Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015
- From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report
February with Women in Red[edit]
.jpg)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Mamie Shields Pyle[edit]
The article Mamie Shields Pyle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mamie Shields Pyle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
  Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 March 2020[edit]
- From the editor: The ball is in your court
- News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide
- Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews
- Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?
- Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed
- Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman
- In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019
- From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?
- Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark
- Gallery: Feel the love
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Opinion: Wikipedia is another country
- Humour: The Wilhelm scream
Help with an article[edit]
Hi Knope7! I'm looking for help and advice on an article I've recently expanded, GirlsDoPorn, about a long-term case of widespread sexual abuse in the porn industry. (Be warned, it's one of the most disturbing cases of sexual abuse I've read, or in this case written, about.) I'm reaching out to you because I saw you've worked on some legal articles such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and I'm looking for some legal advice. The case of GirlsDoPorn involved a lawsuit which awarded $12.75 million to women in damages, and I'm wondering how the article should discuss information from the lawsuit. Initially I've gone with use of "alleged", "reported" or "according to X" wherever a potentially legally damaging claim is made, to make sure I'm complying with WP:BLP. However, I'd like to be using the minimal amount of qualifiers that is appropriate, because I think such qualifiers can undermine the realities of what the women involved experienced. What can we say on Wikipedia of claims made by plaintiffs in a case that was found in favour of them?
I'm also looking for help with the "Legal action" section because I'm not too familiar with the American legal system and I want everything to be correct. I don't know if there are legal sources rather than mainstream media sources that we could use here. Also, any cleanup and copyediting or any other improvements would be welcome. If this isn't a topic you want to work on, thanks for reading this anyway! Best wishes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 March 2020[edit]
- From the editors: The bad and the good
- News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report
- Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters
- In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story
- Discussion report: Rethinking draft space
- Arbitration report: Unfinished business
- In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"
- Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19
- From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own
- Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world
- Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Your GA nomination of Amy Poehler[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amy Poehler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. ~~
Your GA nomination of Amy Poehler[edit]
The article Amy Poehler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Amy Poehler for issues which need to be addressed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Amy Poehler[edit]
The article Amy Poehler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amy Poehler for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2020[edit]
- News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?
- In the media: Coronavirus, again and again
- Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit
- Featured content: Featured content returns
- Arbitration report: Two difficult cases
- Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night
- Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias
- Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 May 2020[edit]
- From the editor: Meltdown May?
- News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
- Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct
- Featured content: Weathering the storm
- Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction
- Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam
- Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book
- News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement
- Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
- Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime
- WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles
- On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
Million Award for Amy Poehler[edit]
|
|
The Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Amy Poehler (estimated annual readership: 2,250,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
I saw that you added a userbox for this already but thought I'd provide independent confirmation and also list it at the Million Award Hall of Fame. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 28 June 2020[edit]
- News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine
- Community view: Community open letter on renaming
- Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd
- In the media: Part collaboration and part combat
- Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals
- Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow
- Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation
- Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths
- News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice
- Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking
- Humour: Cherchez une femme
- On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter
August 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 2 August 2020[edit]
- Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?
- COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
- News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin
- In the media: Dog days gone bad
- Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
- Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom
- Traffic report: Now for something completely different
- News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users
- Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil
September Women in Red edithons[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 30 August 2020[edit]
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
October editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
November edit-a-thons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 November 2020[edit]
- News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
- In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books
- Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20
- Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story
- Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.
- Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?
- Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner
- News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters
- In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
December with Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 November 2020[edit]
- News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"
- Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia
- Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia
- Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria
- Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election
- News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker
- GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large
- Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup
- Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail
- Essay: Writing about women
The Signpost: 28 December 2020[edit]
- Arbitration report: 2020 election results
- Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.
- Traffic report: 2020 wraps up
- Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions
- Essay: Subjective importance
- Gallery: Angels in the architecture
- Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas
A New Year With Women in Red![edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 January 2021[edit]
- News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021
- Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection
- In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades
- Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically
- Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years
- News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world
- Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers
- Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia
- Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020
- Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen
March 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 28 February 2021[edit]
- News and notes: Maher stepping down
- Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
- In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house
- News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia
- Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day
- Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?
- Gallery: What is Black history and culture?
April editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 28 March 2021[edit]
- News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan
- News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond
- Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise
- From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes
- Obituary: Yoninah
- From the editor: What else can we say?
- Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees
- Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack
The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
The George Lucas Talk Show wikipedia comments[edit]
Hi Knope7, 67.250.163.200, Mcdave mcdougal I tried to move the comments over to the press box in the talk page of the article as if the episode discussed editing of the article, it should belong there and not on the main page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
July 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 27 June 2021[edit]
- News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more
- In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money
- Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release
- Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report
- Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way
- News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview
- Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?
- Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed
- Obituary: SarahSV
Proposed Women in Green Editathon[edit]
Hello Knope7 -- With the goal of helping to progress the WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) women’s rights-themed GA nomination goal for 2021, I’m proposing that WiG hold a special editathon event in the fall (maybe October/November?). I can assist with logistics, but I need to know how much interest/support there might be from WiG participants first. Please let me know what you think in the talk page conversation! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 25 July 2021[edit]
- News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories
- Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong
- In the media: Larry is at it again
- Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates
- Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki
- News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department
- Humour: A little verse
September 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 August 2021[edit]
- News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban
- In the media: Vive la différence!
- Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year
- Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs
- News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia
- Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview
- Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan
- Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia
The Signpost: 26 September 2021[edit]
- News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans
- In the media: The future of Wikipedia
- Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
- Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
- Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings
- Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?
- Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11
- News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund
- WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful
October 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 October 2021[edit]
- From the editor: Different stories, same place
- News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded
- Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process
- Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention
- Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia
- Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game
- Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more
- Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp
- Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality
- WikiProject report: Redirection
- Humour: A very Wiki crossword
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 November 2021[edit]
- In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021
- Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained
- From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?
- Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021
- Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent
- Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?
- WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
- Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior
- Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword
Survey about How Historical Knowledge is Produced on Wikipedia[edit]
Hi Knope7,
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Reminder: Survey about History on Wikipedia[edit]
Hi Knope7,
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022 with Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 28 December 2021[edit]
- From the editor: Here is the news
- News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements
- Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?
- In the media: The past is not even past
- Arbitration report: A new crew for '22
- By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers
- Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"
- Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021
- Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed
- Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all
- Humour: Buying Wikipedia
The Signpost: 30 January 2022[edit]
- Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment
- News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election
- Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"
- Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?
- WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured
- Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021
- Obituary: Twofingered Typist
- Essay: The prime directive
- In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing
- Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"
- Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword
February with Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March editathons[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 27 February 2022[edit]
- From the team: Selection of a new Signpost Editor-in-Chief
- News and notes: Impacts of Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Special report: A presidential candidate's team takes on Wikipedia
- In the media: Wiki-drama in the UK House of Commons
- Technology report: Community Wishlist Survey results
- WikiProject report: 10 years of tea
- Featured content: Featured Content returns
- Deletion report: The 10 most SHOCKING deletion discussions of February
- Recent research: How editors and readers may be emotionally affected by disasters and terrorist attacks
- Arbitration report: Parties remonstrate, arbs contemplate, skeptics coordinate
- Gallery: The vintage exhibit
- Traffic report: Euphoria, Pamela Anderson, lies and Netflix
- News from Diff: The Wikimania 2022 Core Organizing Team
- Crossword: A Crossword, featuring Featured Articles
- Humour: Notability of mailboxes
April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 27 March 2022[edit]
- From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- News and notes: Of safety and anonymity
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps
- Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks
- In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff
- Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond
- Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now
- Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon
- Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors
- Traffic report: War, what is it good for?
- Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine
- From the archives: Burn, baby burn
- Essay: Yes, the sky is blue
- Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja
- On the bright side: The bright side of news
The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]
- News and notes: Double trouble
- In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia
- Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)
- Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March
- Interview: On a war and a map
- Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers
- Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion
- News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?
- Humour: Really huge message boxes
- From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization
May Women in Red events[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 May 2022[edit]
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
June events from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 26 June 2022[edit]
- News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
- In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
- Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
- Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose
- Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed
- Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
- Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
Women in Red in July 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You have been pruned from a list[edit]
Hi knope7! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.
Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.
Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 August 2022[edit]
- From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
- News and notes: Information considered harmful
- In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
- Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
- Community view: Youth culture and notability
- Opinion: Criminals among us
- Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement
- Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
- Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
- Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
- Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
- On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories
- Essay: How to research an image
- Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
- Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
- Gallery: A backstage pass
- From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
Women in Red in September 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 August 2022[edit]
- News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere
- Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?
- In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
- Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees
- News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me
- In focus: Thinking inside the box
- Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
- Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now
- Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth
- Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.
- Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links
- Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come
- Essay: Delete the junk!
- Humour: CommonsComix No. 1
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago
WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathon[edit]
Hello Knope7:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022
You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 30 September 2022[edit]
- News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
- In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
- Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
- Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
- Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
- Featured content: Farm-fresh content
- CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
Women in Red November 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 October 2022[edit]
- From the team: A new goose on the roost
- News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment
- Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove
- Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com
- Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?
- Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal
Women in Red in December 2022[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 28 November 2022[edit]
- News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"
- In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
- Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
- Book review: Writing the Revolution
- Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
- Essay: The Six Million FP Man
- Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
- Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"
- Featured content: A great month for featured articles
- Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
- CommonsComix: Joker's trick
Women in Red January 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 January 2023[edit]
- Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
- Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"
- Essay: Mobile editing
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
- Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
- Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
- Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
- CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 16 January 2023[edit]
- Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
- News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
- In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
- Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
- In focus: Busting into Grand Central
- Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
- Featured content: Flip your lid
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Women in Red in February 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 4 February 2023[edit]
- From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function
- News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan
- Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos
- Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter
- Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour
- Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles
- Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea
- Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT
The Signpost: 20 February 2023[edit]
- In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
- Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
- Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
- Featured content: Eden, lost.
- Gallery: Love is in the air
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!
- Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
Women in Red March 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 9 March 2023[edit]
- News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
- Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy
- In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
- Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
- Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 20 March 2023[edit]
- News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
- Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
- In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences
- Featured content: Way too many featured articles
- Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
- Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?
Women in Red April 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 03 April 2023[edit]
- From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
- News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing
- Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
- Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
- Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
The Signpost: 26 April 2023[edit]
- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
Women in Red May 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 8 May 2023[edit]
- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
The Signpost: 22 May 2023[edit]
- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
WikiProject Women in Green June 2023 Good Article Editathon notification[edit]
Hello Knope7:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!
Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – another Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red - June 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 5 June 2023[edit]
- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
The Signpost: 19 June 2023[edit]
- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
Women in Red July 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 3 July 2023[edit]
- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
The Signpost: 17 July 2023[edit]
- In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
- Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
- Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
- Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
Women in Red 8th Anniversary[edit]
|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 August 2023[edit]
- News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
- In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
- Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!
- Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
- In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia
- Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
- Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
The Signpost: 15 August 2023[edit]
- News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
- Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them
- Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
- Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
- Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
- Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion
September 2023 at Women in Red[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 August 2023[edit]
- From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
- News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
- In the media: Taking it sleazy
- Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia
- Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
- Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
- Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
The Signpost: 16 September 2023[edit]
- In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
- Obituary: Nosebagbear
- Featured content: Catching up
- Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
Women in Red October 2023[edit]
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 3 October 2023[edit]
- News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
- Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
- Featured content: By your logic,
- Poetry: "The Sight"
The Signpost: 23 October 2023[edit]
- News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
- In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements
- Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
- Traffic report: The calm and the storm
- News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
Women in Red - November 2023[edit]
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 6 November 2023[edit]
- Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
- In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
- Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
- News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
- Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
- Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
- Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
The Signpost: 20 November 2023[edit]
- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
Women in Red December 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 4 December 2023[edit]
- In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns
- Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
- Comix: Bold comics for a new age
- Essay: I am going to die
- Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
- Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain
- Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies
Seasons Greetings![edit]
.JPG)
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2023[edit]
- Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?
- News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023
- In the media: Consider the humble fork
- Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI
- In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU
- Technology report: Dark mode is coming
- Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture
- Crossword: when the crossword is sus
- Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!
- From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^
- Humour: Guess the joke contest
Women in Red January 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 10 January 2024[edit]
- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
- Comix: Conflict resolution
Women in Red February 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 January 2024[edit]
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
The Signpost: 13 February 2024[edit]
- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
Women in Red March 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 2 March 2024[edit]
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
The article Megan Wessenberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NSKATER... She has won no senior-level medals, nor has she won the U.S. Championships.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Megan Wessenberg for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Wessenberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Women in Red April 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging