First of all, a happy new year to you and wishing you a pleasant 2024 ahead. Just to note though, your move of the Lima Consensus page has been reverted, initially following a request at WP:RM/TR to revert the undiscussed bold move you had made earlier. You should therefore not reinstate that bold move, unless it is confirmed in a WP:RM discussion. It really doesn't make much difference that it's nominated at AFD, there's nothing in the guidelines that says we have to maintain an undiscussed title just because you happened to nominate the AFD during the brief time that it was at that title. Cheers, — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for the message, and Happy New Year to you too :) My last move was mostly related to Liz's rationale, who said that the title was the one under which the AfD was filed under.
I also wanted to point out that a disambiguation probably would be beneficial in this case, and that none of the terms seem to have preponderance over one another. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
La Salida intro
Just wanted to inform you that I updated the wording in this edit since the previous version was inaccurate. There were no sources discussing "an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolutionprevalent since 1998", but sources were saying there was "an effort to end to the government of President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro", so I provided the wording of the latter. Hopefully this is an improvement and appears more neutral to you than the wording "an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro" and we can move on from this article. Again, I'm notifying you of this edit out of good faith. WMrapids (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)— WMrapids (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet[reply]
We have put each other through a lot over the past months of editing together. I have some recommendations for us both that could help with future collaboration and wanted to get your feedback on these ideas.
Self-imposed use of the interaction ban's "undo Bob's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means": We both have a lot to contribute. Having our contributions removed can feel disheartening and maybe even personal sometimes. This also benefits with avoiding stonewalling. All of this can be further supplemented by...
Always using talk pages, not edit summaries: This helps in two ways; we can discuss the content of additions instead of unilaterally removing contributions and it also limits us from going towards removals in order to provide an explanatory edit summary. This would be more beneficial than the bold, revert, discuss method as it results in less conflict (we are not removing contributions), it allows more in-depth dialogue on concerns to additions compared to edit summaries and it provides a discussion history for future users who may have similar concerns. On talk pages, we can use ping notifications liberally and focus on how to word our contributions.
Establishing boundaries: In talk page discussions, we can notify each other when a line may be being crossed. For instance, if an edit is made that one of us completely disagrees with, we can ping each other and say something like "Hey, I want to revert this because of X". Doing this allows us to recognize the concerns of one another while also distancing ourselves from reverts that have the potential to escalate into edit warring.
Leave our biases behind: We must recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and must avoid personal biases when possible. We must establish that in controversial topics, each "side" has an opinion and voice for a particular reason. If we are to focus on one voice while minimizing the voice of another, it leads to neutrality issues and narrows the scope of information available to readers. While it is important to recognize that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, it is important to be more inclusive with notable information than exclusive on controversial topics, of course within reason.
Hi. While this proposal can be a good first step, I don't think I can agree with an interaction restriction (at least if it covers even partial reverts or changes), given that some of the changes I have disputed have consisted in content that failed to be verified and have overall affected the quality of articles.
I have tried adopting a 1RR approach overall and allowing the 24 hours period (or more) for discussion, and it sounds similar to your second point.
If I might ask for more context, can you explain a little better the third point? Does this mean generally notifying the other editor if a change is disputed or if one is thining about reverting?
If there's anything I'd have to add, is to stress I think that talk pages should also be used before the changes, and not only after, given that I think that a good part of the disputes so far has been caused by the large scope of said changes. Let me know what you think about this.
Well for the third point, I'm really trying to emphasize the importance of reverting at all costs and being more communicative on how an article should be structured. Since the use of tags has been controversial between us, I am open to receiving pings in talk pages if you have a dispute or concern as it is less disruptive to the article. The main point is that we add more than we subtract from an article. WMrapids (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)— WMrapids (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet[reply]
@WMrapids: Many thanks for the clarification. I'll try commenting about potential tagging, in that case. I wanted to comment again about the possibility of talking before expansions, given their scope. I don't want this to be construed in any way that you would be "asking for permission", but I feel it's more of a matter of reciprocity and I probably would be able to provide feedback about the content at hand, possibly even including more. Happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks for uploading File:Crazy Bus poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hi - we've not had any substantial engagement previously. To the best of my knowledge we've only had engagment at AfD: once where I supported a nomination of yours, twice where I did not support a nomination of yours ([1], [2]) and once where I commented on an article of yours that was nominated (while remaining ambivalent on the question of deletion). I'm leaving a comment here in good faith which I hope you receive in good faith.
At 09:24 UTC on 2 April 2024 you received a topic ban on Latin American politics broadly construed. At 10:06 that same day, you created the article José Rafael Marcano, a Venezuelan video game programmer. It appears this is a translation of es:José Rafael Marcano, which you created on 19 March and which you continued to edit up until 10:59 UTC 2 April 2024. The notable difference between the two articles is a paragraph in the Spanish version which details Marcano's political persecution in 2004 for producing a game deemed anti-government. That paragraph detailing the persecution was in the Spanish language version at creation, which indicates you were aware from 19 March of a political connection to this subject.
There are different ways one could interpret what happened with the timing and content of the English version of the article; an attempt to avoid the topic ban or disregard for the meaning of broadly defined. Or perhaps you simply didn't look at your talk page until a later time and were editing unawares. Of course, this last explanation appears (to me at least) the least plausible given the differences between the Spanish and English versions of the article. I'm not seeking a justification, only making observations.
I think there people here who are supportive of you and who consider your work a net positive to this project (to be clear, I'm not saying I do not). I have no reason to think the ArbCom case will be anything but transparent - I do not think there is any predisposition against you from the arbitrators. Nevertheless, I can only say you can choose to do yourself favours or not do yourself favours - your work will come under scrutiny, be mindful of grey zones. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: Hi, thank you for your message. I avoided the paragraph precisely in order to respect the current restrictions (especially since in Spanish it might be expanded), focusing only on those aspects unrelated to politics. The last time I was subject to restrictions I always asked the concerned admin when in doubt, but in this case I can notify @Callanecc: and request a speedy deletion of the article per G7 if this is seen as too near of a grey zone.
I'm thinking about appealing the restrictions, but I will respect them nonetheless, both before or in case they stay in place. I likewise welcome any scrutiny because it is only bound to give information about the current situation.
I know from your comments and our interactions that you have the best intentions for the project in mind, so I'll be glad to help in any way I can. Kind regards, stay safe. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. FWIW, I think in this particular case a speedy is unnecessary - only because it would be process wonkery, but I think you can see it is a reasonable question whether this was a breach of the TBAN. However, this is the problem with being in the grey zone; here the spirit is more important than the letter. If something one does in future is going to necessitate "litigating", that's how one can be judged, not on whether one was right or wrong, but the fact that one's work required continuous judgement. Travel well, kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Guerillero is one of the drafting arbs for the case; that means, he is one of three who will be writing the proposed decision for the other arbs to vote on. Since he already added the Sockpuppetry proposal in his section, it's redundant for you to add it again, and you should probably delete that.
@SandyGeorgia: Thank you very much for the advice once again. I was finally able to answer to your first query, and I only hope it could have been earlier. I hope it's enough time for you, I will look forward finishing throught tomorrow. Please let me know if I should add anything else. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! Some acknowledgement of how you would handle reverts going forward would be good; many experienced editors have a one-revert rule for themselves. A very strong and convincing statement of what you will do differently going forward would be good; English-speaking people aren't always as subtle/discrete/polite as Spanish-speakers are ... you could say things more forcefully :) If you are finished with your workshop entries, and if you have time, I was wondering if you know of any sources on the following:
Has Weisbrot published a position on the Guyana-Venezuela dispute?
Does Oliver Stone have any plans for new "documentaries" or films in the works that you know of?
Is there any reason for the recent sudden interest in Halvorssen Jr. and Sr. ? Why are they suddenly popping up again? Is that just related to discrediting Lopez, or is there a piece I've missed?
@SandyGeorgia: Following up on these, since afaik the Workshop has closed. I added further acknowledgement in other comments; I only hope they're noticeable enough.
To answer to the questions: I'm not aware about Weisbrot's positions or new works by Oliver Stone, but I can look into it. As for the Halvorssen family, I know that they have been subject to a defamation campaign for years now. This is part of a really complex and messy network that has also affected Venezuelan journalists and might be related to Derwick Associates. I'm not aware of investigations that have been able to look deeper into this. I'll try emailing ArbCom with the rest of the information that I have. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Hi! Thanks for the notice. The first time that I read this I understood you referred to my comment (unless this is the time that I'm misreading it), but I already about not paying mind to it. I also noticed that it is in the wrong section.
I haven't forgotten to answer to your queries, it's just that this messages have taken me way longer than I expected and likewise have had less time than expected. Please let me know if you need additional time to answer by then, if it isn't enough. Stay safe! --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to the other person's comment; the arbs will pay attention to what matters, not squabbling on the workshop pages. If you need more time, be sure to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The workshop page is closed now, so your topic ban means we can't interact on political content (outside of the arb case) until/unless your topic ban is lifted. Saludos y que estés bien, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, as there is some delay, there may be some disagreement between the arbs behind the scenes, but be aware that when the Proposed decision is posted, it often includes multiple options they have to vote on ... that is, for something to appear on the Proposed page doesn't mean it will pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. It's something that I didn't consider, as I seen many of the decision points being passed my unanimity. In any case, like you mentioned, I think it's better for them to take as much time as needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khadija Mbowe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
WMrapids (talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
WMrapids (talk·contribs) is topic banned from Venezuelan politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hey there. You may want to avoid edits like this, which might violate your topic ban. If enough of these borderline edits pile up, it could lead to more trouble. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Kind regards, many thanks for the heads up. I'm trying to be extra careful overall, but one can never be too careful. Thanks again for looking after me. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking in
Hey there. I'm wondering if a wiki break might be in order. This edit and the page retitling that preceded it are to me plainly at odds with your editing restriction on Latin American politics, broadly construed (I stepped in to help deal with the preceding PRODs because I knew you couldn’t). I had been hoping there could be some constructive resolution to the restriction and violating it makes that substantially less likely. Maybe some voluntary time away would help break the habit of editing in these areas? Genuinely hoping for a good resolution here. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: Thank you very much. I admit the restriction slipped my mind during the first move, which is the same reason why I didn't move the second article (Ecuador). I haven't appealed to the TBAN because I'm trying to take this time as a wikibreak on its own, among other reasons, and I'm already focused on editing in other topics ([1]). I scrapped my watchlist for the same purpose. I hope all of this is alright overall. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NoonIcarus :-) Just want to say now I understand why she proposed that you could participate in talk page discussions on the topics [2], and asked for clarification on the scope [3]. I was dumb and didn’t understand, but now I know (as an “experienced” user) ...
Things are just humiliating ... and I can never be as civil and as resilient as you do. The more I get involved, the more flaws of Wikipedia that I see. Better stop ranting. You deserve this barnstar. All the best,
@Dustfreeworld: Hi! Thank you kindly for your words and stopping by, I was planning to write these days too. This is a very pleasant surprise and definitely makes the ugly moments worth it.
I think ultimately editing should be something enjoyable, and while there might be unfairness and flaws sometimes, I feel things get better. I'm definitely glad of meeting you, for instance :) Many thanks once again, stay safe. We'll keep in touch. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Hi! How's it going? No worries, I'm not hurried for the time being and I have other projects in mind, including Women in Red's translation trimester and this month's event of the LGBT Wikiproject at the eswiki. Speaking about the latter, this month is about Venezuela, so feel free to drop in if you like :)
I think I recall the case that you linked at the noticeboard back then. I will bear the current discussion in mind if I ask the decision to be revisited, but I'm not planning to do it for the moment. Stay safe as always! --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borboteo: ¡Buenas! Todo bien por suerte :) Espero que igual para ti. Actualmente está vigente una restricción que no me permite editar en dicho artículo, pero aprovecho para notificar a @SandyGeorgia:, quien también es bastante activa en temáticas sobre Venezuela y puede ayudar con al revisión. ¡Saludos! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias, querido. Doy por concluido este regreso wikipédico; te dejo a cargo de los artículos que escribí (en su mayoría) con tanto amor. Me alegra saber que hay alguien que está pendiente de todxs allá en el Caribe. Si estás para esa, un día te puedo contactar por correo, sería divertido compartirnos historia, arte, etc. ¡Abrazo! Borboteo (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, Borboteo; un placer. Desafortunadamente, estoy pasando graves problemas ahorita con mi internet y solo puedo responder atravez de me telefono. Me vienen supuestamente el viernes para arreglarlo, aunque no tengo gran confianza que me lo arreglan ... si no sabes de mi dentro de una semana, favor de echarme un recuerdo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red October 2024
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TarnishedPathtalk11:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Buenas @AbchyZa22:, un abrazo. No soy bibliotecario (administrador) ni en la Wikipedia en español ni en esta en inglés. Para ser desbloqueado, debes pedirlo por los canales regulares, en tu propia página de discusión. Por el enlace que compartes, una solicitud de verificación de usuarios determinó tu relación con esas cuentas. Esto significa que se determinó que se compartía IPs con ellas o que hay una cercanía geográfica. Si comentas que no son cuentas tuyas, ¿consisten en amigos, o cuentas usadas desde el mismo equipo que usas para editar?
Estas son las respuestas que debes ofrecer al pedir tu desbloqueo, y tienes la opción de mandar correos electrónicos si hay información sensible o privada. Espero que esto haya podido ayudar, mantenme al tanto si necesitas más consejos. Saludos, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
En el primer enlace esas cuentas (Ernesto Rosales y David) no son mías (ósea títere) por eso el Usuario me bloqueó significa que no contactar por e mail ,ósea Taichi cree que soy títere de esas 2 cuentas. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Buenas, es correcto. Lo que quiero decir es que no tengo la capacidad para desbloquear y no puedo ayudar en ese sentido. En cualquier caso sí estoy pendiente si necesitas asesoramiento. Saludos, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
transl. Kind regards @AbchyZa22:, gus. I am not a librarian (administrator) neither in the Spanish Wikipedia nor in this one in English. To be unblocked, you must request it through regular channels, on your own discussion page. From the link you share, a user verification request determined your relationship to those accounts. This means that it was determined that you shared IPs with them or that there is a geographic proximity. If you comment that they are not your accounts, do they consist of friends, or accounts used from the same computer you use for editing? These are the answers you should provide when requesting your unblock, and you have the option to send emails if there is sensitive or private information. I hope this has helped, keep me posted if you need more tips. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
transl. In the first link those accounts (Ernesto Rosales and David) are not mine (meaning sockpuppet) that's why the User blocked me means not to contact by e mail, meaning that Taichi believes that I am a puppet of those 2 accounts. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
transl. Regards, that is correct. What I mean is that I don't have the ability to unblock and can't help in that regard. In any case I do look forward advicing you if needed it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
transl. Ok, but write in the Wikipedia village pump (Miscellaneous) I need an admin to unlock my account please. AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
transl. Hello, NoonIcarus, please wrote in the Miscellaneous section. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Sorry! Truth be told it's the first time that I read about that guideline. I have provided translations for watchers and non-Spanish speakers.
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
I've added a bunch of info to the draft here, only with sources that I am confident of (or believe are satisfactory with in-line attribution/context). There are probably some sources on .ve websites with other information, would you be willing to look into some of them? I think it's in decent enough shape so far from what I've added, though, to be fair. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Sorry for the delay, I've been a tiny bit more inactive in the last weeks. The draft looks amazing! Among other sources, including some that I added during the discussion, are the following:[4][5][6][7], the last one being the State Canoeing Association. I also found this Canadian sources: [8][9], as well as her IOC profile [10]. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Jaffe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
