User talk:Jesswade88

This is Jesswade88's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		message For all the great work you do on Women in Red

Hi Jess. It seemed sensible to move our conversation over at User_talk:Elenabesley#Help_me! to your talk page. Yes, I like your addition of a note on your user page. That, of course, presupposes that the rather surprised subject of your articles actually know: a) how to find out who it was who created the page about them; b) then how to post a message for you, and also c) that it's a really bad idea to try to edit stuff about themselves.

So, I was trying to suggest that it might not be a bad idea if you were to consider adding a fairly anodyne talk page post on the articles you create. I suspect they might stand more of a chance of seeing something there than wading (no pun intended) through View History to get in touch with you, the page creator. So, assuming you don't make direct contact - academic to academic - how does this sound for an article talk page note?:

About this new article

This article was created by Jess Wade as part of an effort to increase the representation of my fellow women scientists on Wikipedia. I try to create one article about a notable scientist every day, using good, published sources.

If you happen to be the subject of this article and have concerns about its content, please reach out to me on my talk page or by clicking my signature below.

It is best if the subject of an article does not try to edit it themselves, especially if they are totally new to editing Wikipedia. This could be seen as a Conflict of Interest (q.v.), but there are lots of other editors willing to assist newcomers to Wikipedia, including myself if I happen to have got anything wrong. Alternatively, we have a friendly help forum for new editors called The Teahouse where you can easily get help and guidance. Signed

You might think I'm making a fuss over nothing, and maybe other subjects don't have the challenges that Elena and I did late last night. But if this does' happen from time to time, perhaps this approach might help everyone a little bit? (I should add that I'm also a Teahouse host, where we do see lots of confused new editors, often trying to write about themselves, though rarely anyone wondering why there was suddenly a Wikipedia article about them, and being totally lost trying to sort things out. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(dropping in), that sounds like a good suggestion from Nick - I had a brief involvement, before Nick provided a more useful set of advice. I suspect this might be one of the cases where it's not needed 19/20 cases, but will save some problems over time. I actually do see a reasonable number of cases of people (through OTRS) being surprised and confused about being the subject of a Wikipedia article (though time taken to realise has varied wildly), and knowing who to ask about corrections is the single biggest concern. As always, thanks for your articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that's not other subjects of your articles Nosebagbear (talk)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found two, and am going with the one in color, but I can see an argument for the other (business suit rather than sundress; isn't posed to center on birthmark), so if you prefer it, I will not object. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 

Following on from my suggestion above, this is just a courtesy note to let you know I've written a few words about you at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/Community view Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, have you ever thought about a run at RfA? After Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum, there seems to be an emerging consensus amongst the community that we should be able to trust experienced and civil content writers with the admin toolset if they want it. In your instance, I would perceive a nomination and potential use of the tools to be similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl, and in my view there is enough good will in the community (eg: User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 94#Thank you!) to see this through. For example, you could do something like this restoration as an admin. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'd probably support such an RfA, but given Jess's chosen area of content work, and some of the deletion discussions that have ensued, I think it's worth keeping in mind that she is likely to be grilled about notability. If she runs in the immediate future, she needs to be prepared for this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kimberly See is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly See 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just been reading the interview with you in New Scientist, and I agree with you when you say:

Wikipedia really is a global project, and we’re all working together on this free knowledge. Why then, when some other editor reads a page that they think could do with an extra citation, do they not look for one themselves? I think there are some weird power dynamics going on, with a few individual editors at the top of Wikipedia’s hierarchy who think that they can control what information is valued by the site. 

I am arguing something similar now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are policies being used to the detriment of Wikipedia?. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting material to Wikipedia about real people that either doesn't have an inline citation, or cannot be found in the inline citation provided. I have found at least one instance of such in the last three Wikipedia pages you have published, Hickey, Brennecke and Lopez, and others recently too, and I have only been spot checking, these were not comprehensive reviews. Regarding your statements in the media on the matter, while you're entitled to your personal views of what people should be doing with their lives, please note that nobody is expected, much less required, to correct these problems in your editing, and indeed Wikipedia policy expects people who discover them to remove the offending text immediately, for the good of everyone involved, including you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Dunbarton (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're the person whose created a Twitter account similar to your new Wikipedia account to criticise my contributions? If you find anything incorrect in the pages of Hickey, Brennecke or López, please add the [citation required] tag or correct it yourself. All three pages include more citations than the majority Wikipedia articles. It is - of course - difficult to compare these with your own creations, as you seem to have made this account to write comments on my talk page and comment on Clarice Phelps' biography, but I look forward to seeing your input to the encyclopaedia too. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat, when someone is publishing information about real people on Wikipedia that either lacks a source or is not given in the source provided, nobody is expected or required to tag it or fix it. The only course of action policy dictates, is immediate removal. Whether or not other articles are worse than what you're producing, is entirely irrelevant. Please confirm that you understand that what I am telling you comes directly from Wikipedia policy, one of the most serious policies they have, written solely to protect everyone involved from harm, otherwise I think I will have no choice but to ask that you be immediately blocked until you do so. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent publication of a Wikipedia biography for the COO of the Wikimedia Foundation, please note that conflict of interest goes beyond whether you have met or even know the person. It is about whether a reasonable person could conclude there is enough of a connection or relationship (positive or negative) between yourself and the Foundation to mean you would be unable to write a natural account of one of their employees' lives (and it is immaterial whether you think you can). Consider the opposite case - imagine if Katherine Maher had written your Wikipedia biography - would third parties be confident that it would include any negative information that might have been published about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Dunbarton (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I've met Maher once, the same day I met Uzzell. I have no 'relationship' with either of them, other than I respect them for doing their jobs. I included all biographical information available for Uzzell. The same is true for every scientist/ engineer I write about. But by all means, if you don't feel there's enough 'negative information' included in any of the bios I write, feel free to add it. I realise you've only just started this account to monitor the pages I write, but you can contribute to Wikipedia in more ways than that. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to remind you what conflict of interest is about. It is not just about having met people, it concerns all forms of non-trivial interaction, such as press releases that praise your contribution to Wikipedia, the website they own and exist to promote. But even on that score it is worth noting you haven't simply met them, you were invited to speak before them, which again speaks to the nature of the relationship. Nobody is expected to correct any problems that your conflict of interest may have caused, and it is immaterial if you think you otherwise did a good job. All that matters is the perception of you being the person to write about a Foundation employee, what that says about the likelihood of the relationship influencing the content in ways no reader could ever hope to know without doing the work to write it themselves. And it has already influenced the content in the worst way possible, since by your own admission this biography might never have been written had you not been invited to speak before the very person it is about. You can be 100% sure you have done nothing wrong, and still have done something wrong. That is what conflict of interest is all about. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, all of us Wikipedia volunteers can't avoid having some conflict of interest with articles about members of the Wikipedia foundation by definition! So unless Jess Wade is secretly Maher's sister in law, or otherwise unusually strongly connected, I think it's fine, per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I like Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I don't think this has anything to do with it. All of us who write biographies come into contact with people -either online or in person- whom, after we research them further, we decide to create their biography. Sometimes the subject is a living person and sometimes they are long dead. In this particular case, it appears that Jesswade88 met Uzzell in real life, researched her, found enough WP:RS to sort out that Uzzell meets WP:N, and created the article. All in a day's work, and no rules were broken. BTW, I'm not Jesswade88's secret sister in law, nor Uzzell's or Maher's. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Rosiestep. WP:IAR, with which (let it be said that) I feel far from comforrtable, has nothing to do with the objection that was raised about a potential conflict of interest. If COI exists, we cannot simply bypass it through invoking WP:IAR. Now, as far as the substance of the COI allegation is concerned, the Wikipedia entry for Janeen Uzzell, as it stands, shows no sign of favoritism. Let it be said that biographies of members of the Foundation are not off limits for Wikipedia editors; otherwise, there would be no articles at all about any of them. -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The relationship Wade has with the Foundation goes far beyond what any ordinary Wilipedia editor has likely experienced, and simply having met someone does not create a conflict of interest. Although rather obviously if biographies here are being written because an editor meets someone and is personally impressed by them, you would be concerned about potential bias, but that would still not be because a conflict of interest existed, it would just be poor decision making in general. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dunbarton was indefinitely blocked by Joe Roe, since apparently every single one of his edits was an attack on Jess Wade. (Which is generally not advised.) --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jess. We don't use italics for quotations. Wikipedias in other countries might, but the English-language one does not do so. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeenAroundAWhile, thanks for letting me know! Jesswade88 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159 Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Art+Activists & Folklore / Aviation / Great Britain & Ireland Photo and image initiative: #VisibleWikiWomen photo initiative Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Cristina Alberini 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! feminist (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection if I flipped the photo in that article? It looks like a selfie taken in a mirror, and the t-shirt text SCIENTIST is clearly reversed. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, being bold. If you disagree, say. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, great to hear from you! I think it would be good to flip. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

You are recipient no. 2356 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

FYI, I have had to block an editor for harassing and making implicit threats against you. See Talk:Clarice Phelps for the background. Given the nature of what was posted, I thought you should be aware this had occurred. I would have send you this note, which you should feel free to remove, by e-mail but I do not believe you have your e-mail enabled. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jess. Just to let you know... I've just updated the link you made in the Bonnie Henry article as follows: |last2=McGeer|first2=Allison|authorlink2=Allison McGee

(It looks clearer in Source view.) Doing this adds the link but maintains the original citation information intact. It can be adapted to editorlink1, where the person is listed as an editor, too. Oronsay (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oronsay, thanks for letting me know! I've just used this for the first time. Jesswade88 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Just checked the links... perfect. Oronsay (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a link to 500 Women Scientists in DYK, but no images. I looked around, and saw a photo of one of the founders in your Twitter feed! https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1100829068956700672/photo/1 It's great, since she's even wearing an appropriate T-Shirt. Would you be so good as to either upload it to Wikimedia Commons or put a "I release this image under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" in the Twitter description and I'll do it?

I'd have sent this request to you by email, but as Newyorkbrad writes above, your email isn't enabled. Which makes the "... send me an e-mail ..." on your user page slightly problematic. --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! RE: e-mail, I've corrected that now :-). I've uploaded the picture of Kelly and added to the 500ws page! Jesswade88 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesswade88. I noticed that you recently used EarnTheNecklace.com as a source for biographical information in Paula Reid. While there hasn't been as much discussion as I would like about the source, the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesswade88, the editor who nominated this article at DYK, Achaea, hasn't edited on Wikipedia since April 4, and that was only a single edit; they haven't been active since March 19. Might you be willing to look at the review and respond to the issues raised there? If we can't get some sort of progress, the nomination may have to be closed. Thank you very much for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166 May offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Healthcare / Women and their animals / Marys and Mays/ Geofocus Central & Eastern Europe Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I hereby award this barnstar to Jesswade88 for creating hundreds of articles, include some which are close to GA class right from the first edit! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you're the original author of the article Rachel Thomas (academic). I just finished writing a page for fast.ai and it's already up for deletion :( Am I wrong to think that fast.ai by itself could have its own page? Or do you think the tone is just wrong? I didn't mean to make it "promotional" because I'm not in any way involved in fast.ai... Is there any chance you could help me out rewriting the article so it's more suitable? I would be kind of gutted that my first article here would be immediately deleted. Thanks! Paritalo (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were upset in the aftermath of AfD/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, but was it really necessary to slander characterize Wikipedia as being "rife with sexism and racism"? Especially since those two or more individuals with newly created accounts that came from whatever underbellies of the internet to start the AfD can hardly be considered as representative of the Wikipedia community. --bender235 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be how the core community sees itself. However with Wikipedia being an inherently open platform in which anyone can participate, anyone can be part of the community. They have at least been blocked. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if anything, it would have been called for the point out how Wikipedia's principles and collective decision-making prevailed over attempted hostile takeover by actors driven by whatever -ism you want to ascribe their motives to. Rather than decrying a suspected racist and sexist cabal that holds sway over Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up to you or me to decide how someone reacts to sexism and racism. As for cabals, I think that interpretation of the tweet is a reach, to say the least. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pardon me, but as someone who has been part of this project for over 15 years I take offense if the Wikipedia community as a whole (not some individuals, but everyone) is described as "rife with sexism and racism". Wikipedia is an open and continuous project, and if there are people, regions, or topics that are not sufficiently covered, everybody is invited to fill that gap. But don't make it sound like you have to fight sexism and other oppression by the incumbents to do so. --bender235 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to fill the gap is no invitation at all if we do not cultivate a healthy community. That includes confronting discrimination. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is this supposed discrimination? In the AfD above that triggered the Twitter rant to which I am responding, the sexism and/or racism came from outside the Wikipedia community. And in the end, for the most part, our established process of discussion and deliberation worked. So why slander the very project and community that ultimately upheld its principles? I found it uncalled for. --bender235 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to discuss structural inequalities on my talk page, but let's stop clogging up this page. You have made your opinion quite clear. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome not to follow me on Twitter bender235. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wasn't to begin with. I was just monitoring Twitter because of the recent increase in WP:VOTESTACKING, and happened to come across your tweet. Normally I wouldn't care about statements like this, but it was disheartening to see such an (at least IMHO) unjustified generalization from someone who I've noticed as a long-time contributor of high-quality articles. --bender235 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the Wikipedian who created the article for LaShyra Nolen, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this ongoing discussion. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intro to the biography ends with an incomplete sentence: "Boyd is a popular science communicator, making use of " You appear to be the original author; can you complete the thought? I wasn't able to find the missing part in the history. Thanks! --Kewalsh (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kewalsh, done, sorry! What an error. Jesswade88 (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173 Online events: New: July Julies / Disability / Women from Where? ... and starting for an extended period: BLM/Anti-discrimination Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

So my quixotic quest to illustrate your articles continues. Normally I just look for already free images, but in this case, the subject seemed particularly Internet savvy, with both active YouTube and Flickr accounts, so when I couldn't find an already released image I decided to write him and ask for one. And after a bit of time (seems that he's a bit busy just now as a medical person, have no idea why that would be) he agreed! https://www.medlifecrisis.co.uk/post/check-it-out-i-m-on-wikipedia-and-i-didn-t-even-make-the-page-myself Thought you would be interested, and hopefully pleased. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jesswade88

I accept that I might be wrong in tagging the article about Sarafina Nance for deletion, but I believe the matter should have been solved with a discussion on the talk page, and not by simple edit with removal and Ad Homimen attacks with false claims. This is not very polite and there is no reason for that. Guilherme Moura Paredes (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guilherme Moura Paredes, Yes, you were wrong. There are criteria for Academic notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)). Nance easily passes the GNG criteria. It's not very polite to tag pages in the way that you did, you could easily have started a section on the Talk page. Jesswade88 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully see things the same way as you do. It is part of wikipedia's core values to be bold, even if mistakes are made, with no offense being caused or bad manners intendend by such mistakes. It is also asked that experienced editors, such as yourself, be civil and polite to less experienced ones, guiding them as they improve, and that users be cordial to each other, another one of wikipedia's core values, which I am sure you know and cherish. Please take that into consideration and be kinder in the future, as I am sure you would like to have the same courtesy extented to you. Guilherme Moura Paredes (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing longer than me – you're more 'experienced'. It's a bit strange to me that nominating Nance for deletion is almost your only contribution to Wikipedia this year. I'm not sure we're on the same page RE: core values.Jesswade88 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarafina Nance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarafina Nance 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. Take Note List (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. What is it with people threatened by articles about women scientists? Don't worry, this one will be a keep. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jess, I am Hollie, Jennifer Kurinczuk's daughter. Thank you so much for making her a wiki page! (I had been planning on making her one for ages and had never gotten round to doing it, so I was so happy to see it when I looked her up recently!) She and I were wondering what the source of your original private life was i.e. the information about her being married to Paul Burton and having boy girl twins, if you can remember - I appreciate it was a while ago!! Neither of us can think where this information was published online. It is true that she does have boy girl twins, but she and my dad are no longer married (so I have changed the wording on this to reflect that) I am still unable to find an appropriate source online to back this up other than from her daughter Hollie Burton's mouth haha. It's just interesting that it was possible for someone to find out this information without her being aware of it online.

Anyway,

Thanks again! Hollie Ozzieburton (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozzieburton! I found the reference to the twins here: https://www.diversityprojects.ox.ac.uk/wis/meet/8, and the husband (so sorry!) here: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/1998/169/11/tvw-telethon-institute-child-health-research. I hope that you are well! Let me know if you come across any other legendary women scientists who need Wiki pages. Jesswade88 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesswage88, Ah! thank you so much for sharing this with me. Absolutely no worries re the marriage issue haha! we both just thought it was funny. Suggestions for future wiki pages: My PhD Supervisor Fiona Alderdice is a really amazing woman scientist and is a professor in the same dept as my mum, she is also the editor in chief of the journal of reproductive and infant psychology. I also think Fiona Challacombe would be a good shout, she is basically the UK queen of maternal Obsessive compulsive disorder (what my research is in, so I may be a little bit biased haha) They are both two very influential women in their fields. Hollie Ozzieburton (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jess, I haven't checked their notability for Wikipedia, but have found Fiona Alderdice on Wikidata Q43728723, including ORCID ID which gives heaps of pubs. Fiona Challacombe is also on Wikidata Q58458315 with some employment details and, again, ORCID ID with more. Oronsay (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Elwira Lisowska, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I notice you used the image page https://www.dvidshub.net/image/2984578/montford-point-marine-receives-congressional-gold-medal as a source in Ernest J. Harris, but didn't add the actual image itself. You could, you know; it's clearly marked PUBLIC DOMAIN on that page. An image taken by an employee of the US Federal government in the course of their duties is public domain, even if it isn't marked like this one is. I mean - I do generally try to follow up and add images to your articles, and I did in this case, but just in case I don't. Adding an image isn't a requirement or anything, and your work is still very valuable even without them, thank you, but many people do think having an image noticeably improves an article. Sometimes looking for a free licensed image is hard, but in some cases like this it's pretty straight forward. --GRuban (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GRuban: Just noting in case you're unaware, but if you have registered a free DVIDS account, you can batch download entire galleries. (Though it would be nice if we had a DVIDS2Commons script given that it's one of the largest repositories of public domain images on the internet.) GMG^talk 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woo! That is wonderful. Not only did I not know that, I didn't even realize there was a gallery of images for this subject. Come here to impart an item of knowledge ... gain an item of knowledge instead. Cast your bread upon on the waters indeed. Thank you, GMG! --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesswade88! I just wanted to take a moment to say that you're awesome and your work here is incredible. You truly are a wiki-role model!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 12:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Caorongjin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kwabena Bediako, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Caorongjin (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You should follow up on the article talk page and/or Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kathleen_L._Collins_-_article_combines_multiple_people. As I've said before, when people become famous they really should change their name to something uncommon, for our convenience. Maybe Kathoblepas. Or The Scientist Formerly Known As Kathleen Collins. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello jess, thank you for starting the wikipedia article on Marion Koopmans, who has a great impact as virologist, as epidemiologist (she seems not to use this name, but much of her work in the last decades is infectious disease epidemiology) and perhaps even more as a science manager. She was missing, of course. I did some minor edits in the article, and i gave some comments on its talk page (this is work in progress). Could You please have a look on my edits and talk contribs? One more question concerning the article: A sentence in the article says "... the Versatile Emerging infectious disease Observatory (VEO), that will study how changes in environmental and travel will impact the risk of infectious diseases". I am not sure about grammar in English language, but the word "environmental" rised/caught my attention/suspicion. I thought it is an adjective and i expected a noun following it. Perhaps i am wrong about this, i don't know. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

still ongoing. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello, Jesswade88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sarah Pett".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello, Jesswade88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kimberly Manning".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesswade88, two women for whom i did not find an Wikipedia article:

(1) (former?) Ambassador Sabine Nölke from Canada. A source Google does not know is A Letter to (the coalition for the) international criminal court, where she is named as cc-receiver. I am not sure whether i understand correctly, but she seems to be in a highly responsible position. As far as i know the elections at the ICC are a current event, and she might be named in newspaper articles. Maybe she is out of Your primary scope of writing interest, but i hope You know the adequate Wikipedia authors.

(2) Yayuan Liu, scientist working on electrochemistry, energy storage and conversion, and on nanomaterials. Her name appears in the references to the Wikipedia article Solid-state electrolyte, reference no. 50 in the october 21st 2020 version. I guess that Your profession is sufficiently near to hers to make You one of the 1%, perhaps 0.1% best-prepared Wikipedians to write her article. Do Your best: She is a (Science) Communication Lab Fellow, which means she has a clear opinion of style and quality in writing. She was a student of Yi Cui (scientist). My native German wikipedia makes a lot ado about ... GS h-indexes. (I think they are neither nothing nor the ultimate truth about a scientist, but they are something in between). Yayuan Liu's is given here.

--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Info: Sabine Nölke leads the committee for the election of the prosecutor, which aims to get an unanimous decision. The court's publications indicate that this is really hard work, and we have to wait for the results whether the committee succeeds. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hand or no hand?

• 
• 

I know, you're usually too busy to answer such a trivial detail. But I have hope! --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban hero, as usual! I like the one you have chosen with the hand. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]