User talk:Stinglehammer

Hi, this is my Talk page. Feel free to leave a message. --Stinglehammer (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stinglehammer I'm an anthropology student doing an online research project on wikipedians and their motivations and ideals for writing and editing wikipedia pages. I was wondering if you would be interested in answering a few questions I have - sort of like a small online interview.

Best Karoline Husbond (Student at University of Texas Austin) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karohusb

---

Hi Stinglehammer - many thanks for hosting the WiR event earlier this week! I've had another go at a new page and have published one on Frances Murray (suffragist). I found quite a lot but since this is only my second entry I'd appreciate any feedback! --Louise WIR (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Stinglehammer

Published page on Emily Blathwayt, but maybe linked to the sandbox rather than properly published, any help welcome. I have put in some reverse links biography pages mentioned in the article created. hope this is ok

Kaybeesquared (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stinglehammer

Almost completed a page on Emily Blathwayt, it is in my sandbox. Will try to complete over the next couple of days - and even upload if I can.. Happy Easter

Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HI Stinglehammer

Help! someone has added the picture to my new page on Agnes Husband (the one I have asked permission for) but I don't know if it was the museum/gallery who owns the copyright or who did it?

If they check on Monday they may think it was me and pursue breach of copyright (ugh?)!

Kaybeesquared (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HI Stinglehammer Thank you for yesterday's session and help with page on Agnes Husband Your training and guidance were invaluable. You kindly offered to give me wording to write to institutions to request use of images to enhance the page. I would appreciate that advice. --Kaybeesquared (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my Talk page.--Stinglehammer (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that this might be useful :) Standards of notability for novels

Lirazelf (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated guidance from the UK Intellectual Property Office Lirazelf (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details here. Lirazelf (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Stinglehammer (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my talk page. feel free to leave me a message some time. Stinglehammer (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup, we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the virtual worldwide online event hosted by Women in Red. March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks so much for coming to the Editathon on Saturday and for helping out, much appreciated! I hope you enjoyed it, as ever if there's anything I can do to help. please don't hesitate to ask! Lirazelf (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

You are invited...
	Women in Espionage worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Supporting: University of Edinburgh - Women in Espionage and Spy Fiction 13-20 April 2016

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)[reply]

• Hey Ewan, forgot to drop this off on your talkpage after sending the other invites via MassMessage. Please feel free to distribute it to others, or if you'd prefer to compile a list, I can distribute it after work today. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was probably more traumatic than it should have been, but we got there eventually. I've deleted the userpage. I'll delete the talk page (you know we don't usually do that) after a suitable period. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Thanks for that! Appreciated.Stinglehammer (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ewan, for all your efforts in connection with Spy Week. I see from here that quite a few people participated in your event. They also appear to have created a few more articles than the one posted under your "Outcomes". I have also added a link under your Outcomes to the WiR page listing articles created or improved during the WiR Women in Espionage virtual event which is continuing for a few more days. If you still have contacts with your participants, please inform them they are very welcome to continue their efforts under our Espionage editathon or join in any of the other virtual editathons under Women in Red, including Women Writers which is continuing until the end of the month. I, for one, will be happy to assist you and the newer participants if any of you run into any difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - Do see the twitter feed Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers and Ipigott: - Apologies for delay, involved in Wikipedia presentation all day yesterday. Have updated the outcomes on the Spy Week 2016 event page now. And will contact editors so we can keep it going for next few days at least on the Wikiproject Women in Red virtual editathon. Thanks again. Stinglehammer (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a very good job of the Outcomes. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the Recruiter's Desk at The Signpost (yes, I wear that hat, too)... Hi Ewan, @Victuallers and Ipigott:. Please consider writing an article for the SP regarding our Spy Week collaboration. Some of the tweets are absolutely awesome. Some of the stories (dentist turned Scandinavian Mata Hari) are compelling. Length of piece doesn't matter; informative + catchy does matter, e.g. we used "Shhh! Spies!" for the invitation header so something like that. In advance, thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers, Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl: Hi. Sorry for just getting round to this but been super busy with OER16. Don't know if anyone else is already on this but I'll need to write up Spy Week for the university's news bulletins so happy to supply something for Signpost too if I can get a few pointers on what's required. All the best, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :-) Victuallers (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stinglehammer, our co-Editor-in-Chief is @Go Phightins!: and he can give you pointers for a Signpost article. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I've just added a new section to User talk:Padraigin1 but it's appearing within the boundary of your previous edit to that page, the welcome template and associated messages about the editathon. I can't work out how to "close off" your addition: could you have a look at it please and sort it out? If you've put the same message on other editors' pages there may be the same problem elsewhere! Thanks. PamD 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: All sorted now. Thanks for the heads up! Stinglehammer (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewan, I'm so sorry but I'm going to have trouble attending tomorrow's wiki meetup. A member of staff called in sick and I'm going to have to work. I'll definitely miss the sharmanka performance, but I'll try and make to some of the wiki meetup if I can, although if work is busy I might miss it altogether... :( Elflin (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elflin: No worries. No one else has officially signed up for it (got couple of maybes) so may just wait and see if anyone comes along and head off myself if not. Keep in touch though, hope to do this again and get a wee Glasgow Wiki scene going if poss. Btw, Sara said you've been looking at setting up something yourself? Would be good to learn more, but another time perhaps? Drop me an email with your preferences for venues and I'll happily set something up (and rope Sara in once she's recovered from the Beltane Fire Festival). Laters... Stinglehammer (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with these editors [1]? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Not as far as I know, we don't kick off till 12pm GMT today so any content will most likely be added around 2.30pm-6pm GMT. I'll check none of our proposed editors have jumped the gun though. Stinglehammer (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this group is adding content that is based mostly on primary sources, some of it contains copyright concerns, and it is overly promotional of stem cells IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to be around (in particular in the afternoon). LoopZilla (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, cannot do much, if anything. LoopZilla (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stinglehammer! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re an active Twinkle new user welcomer. The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle Welcomer. Include the following information:

• Username

• Email where we can reach you

• Your city or time zone

• Best time to talk to you

• Your primary use(s) of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks!

Dchen (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have paraphrased and removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/30/evelyn-gillan and http://www.scotsman.com/mobile/news/obituaries/obituary-evelyn-gillan-social-campaigner-1-3838293. I have removed the material from one of your sandboxes as well. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. I also have removed some the quotations you added to the article, because our non-free content policy requires that non-free content can be added only when there's no alternative and should not be used to excess. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was working on this and not quite sure what happened, but the original was deleted... and the one I was working on remained. As you do... Hester Dickson Martineau Lirazelf (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stinglehammer, as per the article he was a triple agent, hence the code name tricycle Lotje (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Stinglehammer. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, Lotje (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Hello! Your submission of Mary Susan McIntosh 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! DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Helen Alexander Archdale 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) 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stinglehammer, it has been over a week since this was posted here. Please respond as soon as possible in order to continue your nomination. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Evelyn Gillan, Stinglehammer!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mduvekot (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

My name is David Alves (User:Horadrim~usurped), and I'm an Wikipedian in Residence at RIDC NeuroMat (User:Horadrim). I've reach your contact through the Wikimedian in residence page in Outreach. As you may know, Wikimania 2017 is coming! I am here because, as a fellow WiR, I believe this would be a great opportunity for us to share experiences, discuss difficulties and exchange solutions, creating a community among us capable of supporting in other projects that would benefit from residents. In that sense, I have submitted a proposal of a Birds of a Feather activity to Wikimania that you can check out here. I hope to count with your support in this project and would like to invite you to join us if you participate in Wikimania. In case of any doubts, please feel free to contact me, either in my talk pages or by e-mail at david.alvesoutlook.com.

Thank you very much! ‎Horadrim~usurped (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Susan McIntosh, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that sociologist, feminist, and campaigner for lesbian and gay rights Mary Susan McIntosh was deported from the U.S. in 1960 for speaking out against the House Un-American Activities Committee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Susan McIntosh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

Mifter (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muse, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Pseudopregnancy. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm sorry I wasn't able to come to Celtic Knot, but please let me know about future events like this one. -Yupik (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yupik: Hi Yupik, thanks for your message. Jason.NLW has been in talks to see if Celtic Knot 2018 can take place in Aberystwyth in Wales. Not sure how far on with plans he is but worth dropping him a message too. Best wishes, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Alice Emily Smith, Stinglehammer!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Made a correction - she didn't die in 1905, that was just when one of the sources ran out of information about her (fl). Might be worth chasing up a paper copy of Chemistry was their life to find out more information.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAI! Just wanted to drop by to say thanks for coming on Friday, was great to see you - and I'm really happy to see a new Govan Stones page! Hope all's good with you :) Lirazelf (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katherine Alice Burke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.14% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for November: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing from month to month: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Simone Badal-McCreath, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Simone Badal-McCreath and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Simone Badal-McCreath during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Anthony Schrag, Stinglehammer!

Wikipedia editor Triptropic just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work on the article for Anthony Schrag. Thank you for your contribution!

To reply, leave a comment on Triptropic's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Triptropic (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Edinburgh: Picturesque Notes, Stinglehammer!

Wikipedia editor Triptropic just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for the excellent article on Picturesque Notes. A worthy contribution to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Triptropic's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Triptropic (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You previously commented on

• meta:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Programs and events/Development of the programs and events dashboard

and we previously discussed metrics. I am with Wiki NYC, you work with Wiki UK, we both are Wikipedians in Residence, and we both do education. What is good for me I hope is good for you.

I appreciate your long term support for educational outreach and although US and UK do not collaborate nearly as often as I would like, I feel like we share a common interest in this Dashboard and that everyone in your social circle should take as much credit as you like for establishing wiki education outreach, along with all the others.

Now is voting time till 10 December. The Dashboard is rather high in the charts. 10 more votes, I think would be winning at this point. Please vote if you would. Canvassing is allowed; if this is within your interest, please encourage anyone at WM UK or in educational outreach to support as well. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made a brief appearance on Norwegian WP on w:no:Diskusjon:Guy Fawkes Night. I have also tried to contact you on your Norwegian talk page. We fully appreciate that students need some leeway, but the article has not developed since November 29th. The added text is a machine translation and as much as I'd like to see a translation of the english WP article about Guy Fawkes, see w:no:Brukerdiskusjon:Linaria1, it is not possible to keep this addendum. The text is a machine translation and not Norwegian. Unfortunately English texts does not survive as legible going through the machine to what the machine calls Norwegian. They contain Norwegian words (mostly), but grammar and choice of words fails. I do hope you are in contact with the student and can explain that translations from English to Norwegian needs a human hand. I will have to revert the article now. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 20:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyveldi: Hi, I have been on annual leave and have only just seen our message so this is the first time I have known there was an issue (I don't think the ping worked and I mistakenly assumed your message in Norwegian was about templates as I was trying to get some Norwegian templates created... and still am). I will raise with the student now. Can the article be moved to a draft space until the translation is fixed? Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Figured something had happened, that is ok. That's why I made this little reminder as you obviously care about your students. Since the article existed in the first place this was not a question of deletion. I just had to revert the edit, which in a way is a pity since our article was (and now is) no more than a stub. Everything is still in the article history.

-- We to not have draft space in Norwegian, but the student has been given a welcoming message. In this message it is a red link called «kladd» (sandbox) and following this link you create a subpage in your user space. This works well as a draft space. I see that you have several (and so do I). It is also possible to start a translation as a subpage. The problem in this case will be that as the original article is the older, the subpage should not be allowed to be moved to the article space replacing the old page, but text in the original article can be replaced with new text. This means that the original article keeps its history, but the revision history for the subspace article will stay with the subspace.

-- Right now we are having a quite long discussion of what we should do with the machine translator thingummy on our top discussion forum; Tinget - Stans_maskinoversettelsene!. The quality of Yandex makes some of us despair and this is not the first case where users just do not understand that they must basically change all the text offered by the machine. We've had examples of users that can't write Norwegian (some of whom also can't read Norwegian) thinking of it as an invitation to translate. We are despairing because the amount of work left to the regular users on no.wp is formidable. The student (or you) can always ping me with questions or go to my discussion page. I do answer, but on occasion it takes some time, I do for instance not check the English watchlist every day and sometimes I'm busy, but I do try to follow up. I do not mind reminders if I use too much time. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 20:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for creating 2018 UK higher education strike. This covers the same topic as a page I created a while ago, 2018 USS pension dispute. It seems obvious to me that we need to merge these, but I thought I'd run it by you. Also, I'm not sure what the best name to use would be. The strike was not across all of UK HE, so perhaps your title is less appropriate? On the other hand, people might find it more readily. I'd appreciate your views! Alarichall (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please ask you to read this before you comment further at the ACTRIAL talk page. It's another one of the many discussions that you appear to have missed. I am aware how I commented at the VP, but consensus can change, and as I said, I would support a renewed attempt to obtain special rights for the major facilitators, but I would oppose running an RfC for it until ACTRIAL becomes ACPERMANENT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this @Kudpung: - that makes for interesting & encouraging reading in a way. It appears to be an entirely civilised conversation with good points on each side and I welcome the comments that have been made about revisiting this now as a way to resolve any issue with ACTRIAL. RexxS's comments are virtually identical to my own position for what it's worth. I can't help but note that the Outreach editors I know didn't feature in that conversation - which is an issue we in Outreach to seriously address - but I think a renewed RfC might be a positive way out of this before things become too oppositional/intractable. Which is what I want to avoid as there does seem to be some consensus in this direction. I just question separating it from the ACTRIAL discussion. Aren't the two things inextricably linked? Stinglehammer (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this here so as to further clutter that discussion: I made it clear that if you violate policies by seeking to turn that RfC into a referendum on your pet cause by canvassing editors who are so uninvolved on Wikipedia as to not know about arguably the most significant change that has occurred in it's history and who are unable to check WP:VPP, WP:VPR, and WP:CENT to see that a conversation is happening, I would take you to ANI. I do not want to do that, but I will if necessary. My frustration here is that you seem to be playing a game where you are unwilling to even listen to other people or see why they might find your actions disruptive or not in good faith. It's like talking to a wall.

Many members of the community, and me in particular, are bending over backwards to try to meet your needs and to work with you to get through a proposal that will meet them through, despite the fact that the community in the past has rejected the same proposal for the very reasons you want it. I'm sorry, but you cannot turn this RfC into a circus about outreach, which is what you are proposing to do. It is about one question only: whether or not ACTRIAL should be made permanent. Please do not try to derail it further by canvassing off-wiki to people who agree with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: There was no need for this comment. None. I'd already replied to your point in the thread and already agreed that the best way forward is an RfC on the Event Coordinator rights which you helpfully drafted. And I said I'd support that and already thanked you for that. Pet cause is a little harsh too. I appreciate that yourself and Kudpung have put a lot of time & energy into ACTRIAL and for this reason I could call ACTRIAL your pet cause. But that wouldn't be fair. The point I was making was that the reason we are having this discussion is because too few outreach editors are in the discussion; both now and historically. No game is being played. That's an issue of awareness and participation that needs to be addressed somehow and at some point (wouldn't you agree?) so that outreach and the wider Wikimedia community can understand one another and work better together. I don't accept the "too bad too sad" argument used against including people in these discussions when we can do better than this and I can't pretend that the discussion is being representative at the moment because I know of so many other usernames who could and should be involved in these discussions. But I am aware of WP:Canvas and already said I would abide by this. I really shouldn't have to say that again. Simply raising awareness and participation is what I'm talking about - not swaying an RfC one way or another. Social media can indeed be very effective in this respect for raising awareness. People affected by the change should know this discussion is happening. Involving other voices with a stake in the discussion in no way derails or creates a circus. We should be open about the fact this discussion is happening and not conduct discussions as if they are happening behind closed doors. It's the free and open encyclopedia after all. For what it's worth, I support improving quality control and ACTRIAL if it helps with this. Just not at the expense of outreach and the work many excellent Wikipedians do everyday. Would you expect me to say otherwise? In fact my position is really no different to that of Lirazelf, RexxS, Richard Nevell, Jason.nlw or any of the other editors working in outreach so I'm really not sure why you're singling me out here. Anyway, there seems to be a (hopefully) growing consensus on the proposal you drafted so that looks like a very constructive way forward. Stinglehammer (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People affected by this change already have been given ample notice of this discussion on Wikipedia in no less than 9 different talk pages and noticeboards, including the centralized discussion. You have not agreed to follow WP:STEALTH, which is why I posted this. Even in the response above, you seem to be pushing for off-wiki notification when there is no need to do so. As Andrew has so helpfully pointed out, I have already posted this discussion just about everywhere possible using neutral language, so there isn't a reasonable argument to be made that active community members would be unaware of this unless they were notified via email or social media. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I shouldn't need to agree to adhere to WP:STEALTH when it is just another form of WP:CANVAS which I have already said a couple of times that I am not doing. This is getting ridiculous. How many other forms of canvassing do I need to explicitly tell you I'm not doing? Besides, you only seem to be objecting to this in case I am stealth canvassing against your position. I have also already stated I am not against ACTRIAL or increased quality checks if outreach doesn't suffer as a result... which it doesn't have to. "Just about everywhere" is also not strictly true - otherwise we'd have many more voices in the discussion but I accept you will have posted on the main English Wikipedia boards. I still think we could do more when it is a big change like this but WP:CANVAS obviously ties your hands. (Which I'm still not doing). Stinglehammer (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were pushing to notify people via social media at the same time you were saying you were going to follow canvass. If you are saying you have no intent of placing any off-wiki notifications, then all is good. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Asking about whether this would be acceptable in light of advice from a trusted editor colleague. You said it wouldn't so I did't. End of story. I'm looking to work within the guidelines here so we can arrive at a workable consensus. And the reason I asked is because I know my views are not mine alone (see Richard Nevell, RexxS, Lirazelf, Jason.nlw) and I know many outreach Wikipedia editors check Twitter, the Wikipedia & Education Facebook group, the Wikidata & GLAM group etc. sometimes as much as Wikipedia message boards and sometimes instead of the Wiki message boards. But are their views worth less because of this? Not exactly talking inexperienced editors here. Stinglehammer (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have less than zero sympathy for what you are saying: if someone is completely disconnected from the on-wiki community, then they likely shouldn't be doing outreach and representing our movement. If you are asking, the answer is no, it would not be acceptable to notify them off-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked. You already answered. We've covered this. For what it's worth, I really shouldn't be getting this kind of flak for merely making a suggestion about including other editors in a discussion that affects them. InsertCleverPhraseHere's suggestion of posting on an Outreach noticeboard seems eminently practical. Your stance about the on-wiki community is too hardline for me. There could be any number of reasons why people contribute massively to Wikipedia but don't follow or participate in certain discussion threads. The fact they are a timesink could be one reason. The fact they can often be robust, sometimes too robust, is another. I don't think this is a good enough reason not to be inclusive on large-scale changes like this but I don't think we can agree on this. Stinglehammer (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it is too hardline, it is well accepted policy and consensus. Notification of individuals of a major policy RfC off-wiki is a bright line, which is why it received such negative feedback. You never asked about on-wiki canvassing or I would have told you the same thing as ICPH. If you need help, let me know. At the same time, as I said on the ACTRIAL talk page, I think the best thing now is to discuss the concrete proposal we have for meeting your demands. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for this. I've just left you a message on the ACTRIAL page. I apologise if my mentioning of reaching out to others was poorly timed. I should not have mentioned it within the confines of an ongoing RfC. My intention was rather to throw it out there as to how we could better get more Outreach editors to contribute to discussions like this as my concern was rather that by starting the RfC so early we risked missing out on their views being heard. I now accept it may have been better if I had mentioned this elsewhere another time. I knew discussion of reaching out to folk offwiki might be something of a red line however so I sought to check with you in the first instance. No harm was meant. The incredibly strong reaction I received rather took me by surprise hence why I may have responded strongly in turn. I really don't see these as demands especially when we have gone all round the houses and ultimately all agree that ACTRIAL is a good thing and another stab at the Event Co-ordinators RfC would hopefully resolve the issues I raised (hopefully also including the Outreach editors I think would benefit from this RfC but I'll lean on you for advice on how we can best reach out to these editors within the guidelines). While my Oppose for Now vote was not the only one, if it means moving things forward on a more amicable footing I would be happy to switch to Support or at least withdraw my opposition. Best wishes, Stinglehammer (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't be intimidated by Ballioni's bluster and threats. He himself selectively canvassed projects such as NPP and AfC stating that "All are invited to participate". It is quite reasonable that other stakeholders should be notified about this too, especially if they will be directly affected. As this is a broad change across the project and primarily affects newbies who, by definition, are not yet well-connected, the outreach projects and co-ordinators are best-placed to do this. Please spread the word using the same language that "All are invited to participate". Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did acceptable on-wiki canvassing of affected WikiProjects using a neutral message that was also posted on community accepted forums. This is in no way equivalent to canvassing mailing lists or Facebook groups. The latter is utterly unacceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson, enough with your untruths and disruption now. I know our canvassing policies and guidelines better than most and certainly better than you. TonyBallioni is not threatening anyone at all. What you are doing however, is advocating disruptive behaviour, and that is not acceptable. If I tell you you could be blocked very quickly for that, it's not a threat. The community is well used your disruptive participation on discussions and has been begging you to be more reasonable for years including a case at ANI, in fact a lot of Wikipedians are now exasperated. Don't twist the canvassing policy to curry favour with your Outreach friends or you'll probably find yourself in even more disfavour and it won't be my doing. It would be risible if an outreach worker were in fact a blocked and banned editor and not good for the image of the encyclopedia. Is it your intention to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, or to promote it? We do not need negative press exposure so please don't lead Wikpedia down a scorched earth policy.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same also goes for Stinglehammer: Is it your intention to promote Wikipedia or bring it into disrepute?? ACTRIAL is such a powerful remedy for the massive abuse and misuse of Wikipedia, that as the biggest change to policy in a long time, it will certainly be picked up by the press, and I mean the serious press such as the Guardian or the NYT. It might even feature on a TV news roundup or late night show. Do note that no one needs to tip the press off, they watch our discussions like hawks for any newsworthy tidbits for a good scandal. Try what Davidson is advising and you'll open a can of worms that would negate all your Outreach work and do far more damage than all the bad articles together that ACTRIAL will prevent. For one thing, the New Page Patrollers would simply give up. And where would that lead? Rhetorical question because you are so disconnected with the encyclopedia you represent that you are not even aware of what NPP is and the challenges with which it would be faced if ACTRIAL were not to become permanent. Let's get that sorted out first, andwe will look at outreach and WiR and do whatever is necessary. −Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by disrepute? I don't think messages of doom like this do us any favours either.Stinglehammer (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sky is not falling Kudpung, Wikipedia will not collapse under its own weight if ACTRIAL is not extended (and to be honest I expect it will be). People have been prophesying the end of Wikipedia since at least 2007 and we're still here. The rhetoric here has escalated just a little too far, so it may be time to try and cool things down.

Stinglehammer, given the allergic reaction we've seen here to bringing more people into the conversation I think it best not to do that though I'm sure you've come to the same conclusion. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A pity, I thought we were building an inclusive movement. We seem to be bemoaning Outreach editors not taking part in discussion threads and bringing down the fury of the Gods on anyone having the temerity to suggest reaching out to include them. In any case, I think InsertCleverPhraseHere's suggestion of posting on an Outreach noticeboard is a sensible one. Please note: I will not be the one to do this lest I incur more wrath. Stinglehammer (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sky wasn't falling on the passengers of the Titanic either - when they boarded it. At the present rate, if I stay with Wikipedia for as long as I've been on it and nothing gets done, by then it will not only be the victim of its own success but will also be as derelict as the city of Tchernobyl with perhaps some scavengers going through the rubble. And I'll be 82, probably won't have done another 91,000 edits, and I'll have handed my admin tools in and be and past caring. Stinglehammer and his friends are paid for what they do; I appreciate you trying to cast calm over troubled waters Richard, but try to see things from the perspective of the unpaid volunteer editors who contribute most of the content and maintain this encyclopedia. Castles in the sky? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung I appreciate you have a lot emotionally invested in this policy, but I hope that when this all dies down you'll reflect on the above post and consider whether you may have gone over the top just a smidgen. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get much perspective while mired in the discussion. Perhaps you were not aware, but I am also a volunteer and have spent countless hours over many, many years writing on this site. That doesn't give me ownership of it any more than anyone else. Which is a shame really, because Wikipedia would be fantastic if I was king for a day but it does mean I understand why people are treating this as a make or break moment. Happy editing, Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: for it to stay in Ongoing, it'll need decent and regular (like daily) updates. So please, given that some of us supported this strongly, do that for us all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this in a happier section as the above one got quite heated. Thank you for this. I really do appreciate it more than you know. A bit about my work style: I believe in finding solutions and middle grounds, and I really dislike getting drawn into discussions as to what is necessary before X happens or what group needs to be consulted when, etc. My goal is always to find the solution that everyone can be happy with, or at the very least, can achieve a broad consensus.

I don't want you to change your !vote if you don't want to, but the general comments about needing the outreach part of the puzzle solved first when we were working on a proposal to address them and put it to the community, combined with raising the idea that we had somehow excluded part of the community (we haven't. By any measure this is a very well advertised RfC), came off to me as you trying to take over what was designed to be a discussion to give a clear answer on one of the most talked about topics on Wikipedia over the last 7 years for what is a relatively minor (but important) part of the work we do here.

One of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia is working with people to find compromises that work for everyone, and I think I'm generally good at it. What frustrates me is when I feel the other side isn't acknowledging the work that I have put in to try to work with them. That's the vibe I got from our discussions today because it was so focused on what hadn't been done rather than what could be accomplished and what we're trying to accomplish. Anyway, all that to say, I really appreciate your note at the ACTRIAL page, and I apologize if we were talking past each other and I said anything overly forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for this Tony. I think we've absolutely been talking at crossed purposes today and we hopefully will both learn from this. I think you've imagined me as much more Machiavellian than I am. Always the danger when typing rat-a-tat-tat responses over several hours rather than talking for 5 minutes face-to-face I suppose. (I'm a pussycat and hate conflict). Someone else mentioned to me that I was feeling my way into this and that's true. I felt rushed by going straight into the ACTRIAL RfC (after I'd taken a couple of days break) that voices may have been missing and that the Event Co-ordinator RfC might get short shrift or put into the long grass. Unfamiliarity with procedural issues I suppose. I apologise if I came across as demanding. Not my intention. I suppose it concerns me when RexxS is sometimes brought up as the only example of an Outreach editor contributing to discussions but at this moment in time I'm not really sure what the best thing to do about that is. I think if anything this demonstrates that there is work to be done understanding one another better in terms of Outreach and the on-wiki community. That and we shouldn't assume the worst of one another. Do I need to just delete my Oppose for Now response and the messages within that particular section before I can change to Support? Best wishes, Stinglehammer (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: things get heated in project space sometimes. If you want to strike your oppose, what you would do is change #'''Oppose''' to #:<s>Oppose and put the closing </s> at the end of your signature on that comment to strike. Then leave a note on the support. This is again, only if you actually want to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frances Ivens, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that when the English surgeon Frances Ivens joined the military hospital at Royaumont in France during the First World War, she had no experience in treating men? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Ivens. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in a mood of great NON-hostility I reverted your Tees Bridge pic as I felt it was a bit small and distant. I'm absolutely not up for a fistfight over this, though, so happy to discuss it at the Talk page! Maybe that is your neck of the woods and you're thinking about the context in a way I'd missed or something ... ? Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the note there. You'll see my response. I'm not 100% sure about but willing to give it a go. Others may have a view but it might be there for good. I won't intervene again. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Stinglehammer! Thank you for your contributions. I am Globetrotter83 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Globetrotter83 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Is there any chance you might be able to get the images (of medals and letters) on http://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/untoldstories/2015/05/20/william-hunter-1861-1937-the-order-of-st-sava/ released under open licence, please?

Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pigsonthewing:, I've asked our digital curator what the situation is with these images. Will see what we can do. Cheers. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goats! Qaisjp (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewan, I see from your note at WT:WikiProject Medicine #WP:MEDRS and Cochrane review articles that you want to make sure a new editor can be supported, but may need some help navigating the higher requirements of WP:MEDRS. I'm naturally keen to see your work supported and I'm more than happy to pitch in with any help or advice I can give. Please feel free to ping me into any discussion where I can be of help, or drop me an email. If the new editor still needs any explanations, do let me know. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks @RexxS:. Yes indeed, if you are familiar with WP:MEDRS and can help User:Vivrolfe in terms of clarifying the issues with sources being used then that would be very helpful indeed. The discussion is here. Thanks again. Best wishes Stinglehammer (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stinglehammer: I just noticed that your "List of ships on Wikidata where number of statements is less than three" connects to many articles that I have written or on which I have worked. I am just wondering what does the "number of statements is less than three" mean? Is that a hint towards something that I can improve? Please ping me when you respond. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muse, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article Beatrix Leslie. Could you please specify the page numbers and/or chapters of the "Scottish Witches and Witch-Hunters" source? Since it's an edited book with multiple authors, having more complete bibliographic info will improve verification. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewan. I’m circling back with some more questions on the editathon tool we talked about. More and better metrics are one likely focus for this project, so I’ve posted some questions about what metrics people like you need on the project talk page.

It would be a big help if you could offer some thoughts at the nearest opportunity. Thanks so much for your help! JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for all the information at the Ada Lovelace event yesterday - I've definitely caught the wiki bug! I've drafted my second article, but was wondering if you could offer any advice/feedback? I decided to write the article because Collette Roche was on a Vogue list of influential women, but I don't know if I've done enough to show that she's notable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spacetime73/Collette_Roche

Many thanks Spacetime73 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spacetime73: that's so great to hear! Thanks for reaching out and apologies for taking so long to respond. This week has been espe3cially crazy busy. Will take a proper look at both pages later today. One thing is the full name should be emboldened in the lede e.g. Tara_Spires-Jones. Any additional sources we can cite to help with notability always helps make the case too. Will come back to you later anyway. Very best and thanks again, Stinglehammer (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on RudoNikita requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mean as custard (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your account seems to have been emitting spam to the edu mailing list for two months now.[2][3][4] Please update your anti-viral software now. Some of that malware has been known for at least three years, so your anti-malware is seriously out of date.[5]

The mailing software seems to have been stripping the malware attachments from this mailing list, but the other people in your address book might not be so lucky. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ewan, we met at the Women In Red session where I worked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diane_Maclagan :) hope this message finds you well

I am working on a new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Explorable_Explanation - we're still not finished, we would appreciate any advice you have on making sure it does ok. You can get the basic idea from the definition section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishtodd1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re this piece in The Scotsman: It's disappointing that it says "A recent example of this ingrained gender bias was highlighted when Dr Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2018, one of only three women ever to do so. Her ­Wikipedia page was previously rejected by moderators who felt her contribution to physics did not ­warrant a biography on the online platform." This is what the media wanted to hear, but it isn't very accurate. The problem with academics who are not household names is that it is often difficult to find enough sources to write a rounded BLP article, and simply copying material from the university website or a person's other online profiles would fail a range of Wikipedia policies. It was pointed out that George Smith (chemist) did not have a Wikipedia article until he won a Nobel Prize in 2018 either. Unfortunately, it looks like Donna Strickland is going to be used to drag up the "Wikipedia is biased against women" trope for ever and a day, regardless of the facts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fact that it took a Nobel prize for Strickland to be covered in Wikipedia is indicative of a problem? While academics can be challenging to write about one certainly does not need to be a household name to be notable. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of George Smith (chemist). There was a long discussion about this at WP:ACADEMIC, which says "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" and on Jimbo's talk page, and there is no evidence that Strickland was discriminated against simply because she was a woman. Ultimately Wikipedia articles are only as good as the sourcing available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is of course dependent on secondary sources for information. However, it is probable that as she was president of the Optical Society that such sources would have existed. My own area of work is archaeology rather than science, but it wouldn't be too challenging to write an article about a president of the Society for Medieval Archaeologists. The same could be said of Smith, and while it would not be incorrect the context would be different since Wikipedia's biographies of men outnumber women by something like 6 to 1. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for your help and suggestions today! Charleslincolnshire (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a couple images I was working on were in User:Stinglehammer/List of Suffragettes when I was updating links to the restorations, and, well, have ruthlessly mining it for images to restore. And then decided to see who else was working on suffragettes, as, frankly, image work isn't always that collaborative, and, um... Hi! I'm the person teaching featured pictures at Edinburgh University at the next monthly meetup. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I created and published this new article page without checking the various forms of her name (because it was a redlink on the WiR working page).

Sorry for any problems this may cause you/WiR community! It will be deleted and I will try to take more care.

I had this (longer version of it) as a message on my Talk Page this evening

"Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Dr Elizabeth 'Elma' Innes. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Elizabeth Innes. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia......

Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who hosted us and for the exhibition tour, I have created article on George Drever now. Probably need to see if any of the images and sound recording can be added to the page later.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, as Wikipedia:University of Edinburgh/Events and Workshops/Women in Red is linked from this month's Women in Red message, could you perhaps give that page a "Lead", so that someone hovering over the link gets a bit of an intro and not just "Booking"? I wondered about adding something on the lines of "The University of Edinburgh hosts monthly meetings to improve Wikipedia's representation of notable women." but it seemed a bit pushy! ... Hmm, just moved the {{TOC right}} down to above first section, as set out in the template documentation, but the nutshell doesn't show in a mouse hover, I suggest it still needs a lead. PamD 17:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And then decided it looked better without the TOC right at all - but I think it still could do with a lead sentence. Oh I'll be WP:BOLD - added a lead sentence, please improve it, sorry if I'm treading on your toes! Spent a lovely couple of hours in sunny Princes Street Gardens on Sunday admiring floral clock and listening to pipe bands, in between trains en route to a funeral in Perth; didn't leave the station while changing trains on return journey in rain yesterday. PamD 17:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hosting the session today!

Omeadhbh (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Mx2356 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Marianne Woods.

User:Newslinger while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thanks for contributing this article to Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Newslinger}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

— Newslinger talk 23:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies.

{{WiR 2019}}

As always thanks again for the WiR session and your advice yesterday, I created a new page also for Katherine "Kitty" Marshall as well as Violet Aitken now.

Looking at the main page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette#Great_Britain I noticed there is a section for Ireland and Great Britain but not highlighting Scotland although there is a category and list for Scottish suffragettes from the work you and others are leading on this year. I am rather reluctant to be brave and edit a 'main' article, perhaps you & other WiR leaders can think about increasing the prominence of Scottish women.

Thank you! Kaybeesquared (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Drever

I have tried to respond to this challenge and asked for the categories to be removed (soldier etc) instead; or return to DRAFT ARTICLE status. But I have added two BOOK references rather and hope that helps.

Not much time this next couple of weeks to do more.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]