Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Hi. I hope you are fine. I have removed a lot of unreferenced information. The new page review is one of the last approval stages, so when I see a page like this with a large amount of unreferenced information, and no {{In use}} tag to show that the page is undergoing a major build, I tend to err on the side of caution and remove the unreferenced information. The easiest solution is for you to add the tag to indicate the page is still under construction (if it is). This prevents me and other editors from editing the page until the process is complete and the tag is removed. Please assume good faith of me, as I do of you. By all means add the information again when you can add the references. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely assume good faith. I know you all have a lot of work to do keeping people honest. But can I easily see what you removed so I can add references? Fortunaa (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome! We're a great team. I agree that some of this needed more citation. Today I'll look for the last few. Thank you. Fortunaa (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red April 2023
Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
Since you gave me cake so generously, I wonder if you would have a moment to look at my new article for Arleen McCarty Hynes. As soon as I put it up, someone nominated it for deletion. I'm puzzled! She was listed on Women in Red, so I chose her and wrote the article. Fortunaa (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:
We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!
And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.
You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
The article Regina Purtell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regina Purtell for comments about the article, and Talk:Regina Purtell/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol, as suggested, I nominated it for DYK. Someone had to edit it (blush) because I mis-read an instruction, but they gallantly did and now it is in the queue. This is a thrilling process. Fortunaa (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
September 2023 at Women In Red
Women in Red September 2023, Vol 9, Iss 9, Nos 251, 252, 281, 282, 283
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
I was so pleased when a classmate of mine pointed me at the page you created for Sr. Clemente. I was a student of hers (1975-79) and stayed in touch with her until her death. I was glad, too, to fix a typo, as one tiny bit of tribute to her. I volunteer with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion and was glad that the page was already tagged of interest to the group. Given the interests you describe on your page, you would be welcome to check us out at any of our monthly meetings. The project page provides sign-up info. Part of our group will be conducting a pre-conference workshop at the AAR meeting later this month and others will present at Wikipedia North America in Toronto. If any of this is of interest, please join us. And thanks for creating that page! Engmaj (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Eileen Niedfield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eileen Niedfield for comments about the article, and Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's so exciting! Thank you for your diligent and thoughtful work. I'm deeply gratified, and I'll keep all of your recommendations in mind for improving it even more in the future. Fortunaa (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I had to delete the unsourced dates and the paragraph I added from the article I reviewed.
Should you need to add those dates, back, please make sure they are backed up by reliable sources. They were not backed up and I should have indicated that to you rather than trying to fix myself.
Should you consider it necessary, you can comment on the link I sent you.
Oh dear, I'm fine, but I'm sorry for you. I hope you feel okay about it. You were very kind, and it is fine with me to get back in line and wait for the next reviewer. I appreciate the time you took to do it, and I hope that you continue to do great work for Wikipedia. Fortunaa (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a newbie in the reviewing process, but I aim to improve. There were a couple of unreferenced dates in the articles and I thought I could find source to back them up but that source turned out to be unreliable, and I delete those dates. Let me restore those dates and put "citation needed" template. If you find references, than great. If not, consider deleting this information. Also, there were passages about serving in remote areas and blood donation that I inadequately presented, please also consider presenting that adequately, because, I think, it is a major detail in the biography. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I appreciate the speedy re-review, and I've enjoyed looking at your page and seeing your own good articles. Great work. Fortunaa (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red December 2023
Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
@Fortunaa, don't be discouraged, the article is good in general and the observations by the reviewer are not numerous and are easy to fix, still, they are important, so you should be able to resolve them at ease. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is so kind of you to say this, and thank you. I'm doing okay... I could tell when the GA status was overturned that things were going in a--um--shall we say predictable direction. So I'm bummed but okay with it. However the team might want to consider using a word other than "failed" for what happens when it doesn't quite make the cut. After all, they have to be pretty nice articles to even get considered, yes? Maybe they could say "Didn't pass" (many courses in college are now taken pass/not pass rather than pass/fail for this very reason). But yes, when I finish writing an article I'm doing now on the centennial of the War Resisters League for the mainstream media, I'll come back to this one. It is encouraging people like you who make it worth it. Fortunaa (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some reviewers give time to fix the problems that they noticed, and some do not give. Usually, they give time to fix problems which could be fixed quickly, but not this time :-(
When you submit articles to GA, you are encouraged to review two other articles so that the queue move faster. I didn't plan to review, but when articles I nominated stayed for months, I decided to review some articles to clear the queue as recommended. I was new to this process and the experienced editors after after a while checked my reviews, although it is not a usual way of doing things. They upheld my reviews Melvin Ramsay (which I "passed") and Ruth Ann Davis (which I "passed") but invalidated my reviews for Eileen Niedfield (from "passed" to "returned to backlog") and XXXYY syndrome (from "failed" to "passed"). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I hope you are not discouraged, either! You were the first reviewer, yes? I really appreciated your confidence in this. She was amazing to write about. Fortunaa (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was interesting for me what happened with the article after the second review, and I was said when it did not pass. Please consider doing a couple of reviews, but they take time. Also, don't start yourself like I did, because it is hard to do everything correctly without experience, find a mentor among people with many reviews who can give you suggestions before you make final verdict, therefore your reviews will not be invalidated.
With Eileen Niedfield, please consider fixing the issues indicated by the reviewer and nominate again. It will get GA sooner or later. While doing other things, you would not notice how time will pass.
I mostly write articles on endogenous steroids (steroid hormones of which are naturally produced by human body, mostly by the adrenal gland) and the enzymes that our body uses to make these hormones. When I submitted a few of such articles to the "Biology and Medicine" category, I then decided to review a few articles of that category, and there were mostly biographies of people famous in medicine, and I didn't have experience in writing biographies in Wikipedia, so I was uncomfortable reviewing biographies. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please consider improving the article for Eileen Niedfield according to the comments left by the reviewer AirshipJungleman29 and re-nominating it? Just don't re-nominate without improving, or the new reviewer may reject it for the same reason as stated by the previous reviewer. Don't give up; I also had my nominations rejected, and even reviews rejected, but I try to improve and try to nominate articles again and reviews again. You will make a pleasure for me if the article Eileen Niedfield get the GA status, because I spent time on this article and I don't like the time to be spent without specified result. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You inspired me to get to it, so I sat down this morning and made some changes. I am re-nominating it now. Thank you for the nudge! You are inspiring to work with. Fortunaa (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! A few minutes ago I changed some references for uniformity. I also declared date format to "MDY", please follow this format in the article in the future, or, if you wish to use other format, define a new one in the "Use MDY format" template at the beginning of the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to follow your advice to review articles for GA by participating in the backlog drive. I have a note in to one of the coordinators to learn more about how. Fortunaa (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I had to mark one GA nominee article as "did not pass". I reviewed 4 articles recently. Three of them I marked as "passed" and one "did not pass". I hope that your one will pass for sure. However, I may not be always able to track the progress. Would you mind letting me know once you get the result, so I would be grateful!? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so patient. I'm so grateful to you for you spending so much loving time on it. You're a great GA reviewer. I made a lot of changes right after you kicked it back to me, but then I lost it all before saving! I got busy and forgot to go back and re-do it. Right now I'm trying to find someone at Trinity Washington University (formerly Trinity College) who will confirm that she graduated magna cum laude with a degree in chemistry. It's people like you who make it worth doing Wikipedia. BTW, here's an article I published on this effort just this week: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/why-notable-catholic-sisters-need-wikipedia-pages-and-how-create-themFortunaa (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit where you added a space to the article. That was inappropriate. If you wish to leave a comment for another editor, please use their talk page or use the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. Please know that I'm always honored to actually make a change when asked. Another choice you have is to re-edit my edits... always appropriate! But reversions should be a last resort only. They can be considered hostile on Wikipedia. Reversions can even make editors leave Wikipedia altogether: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessaryFortunaa (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD. Reverts are one of the natural editing processes, not something to be avoided, and no discussion is needed to get permission to remove content or to revert an edit. What is a problem is repeatedly reinserting content without addressing the issue (or by adressing an unrelated issue[1]). Threatening to leave because you get reverted is not helpful at all though. Fram (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, this is going in an odd direction. I'm friendly, and only want peace and love on my page! If you want to talk IRL, please ask me for a calendar link. It will set up a zoom automatically and we can discuss in person. Fortunaa (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunaa, just to clarify. I have no problem with you and from what I've seen, your edits are basically uniformly constructive. I thought that particular one was a "bit iffy" and chose to leave a hand-written comment rather than a templated warning. I very sincerely wish both you and Fram happy editing. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 18 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.
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.
It's not a question of whether I believe she is dead or not. It's a general principle, in line with BLP policy, that no Wikipedia editor should publish that someone is dead without reliable sources. The fact that the date is "unknown" is a concern. Are you saying that her date of death is unknown (which is notable), or that you don't know her date of death (which isn't)? If it's the latter, then the article shouldn't suggest that there's some mystery about the circumstances of her death. An imprecise 2024 will have to do. Thanks. Escape Orbit(Talk)16:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains far, far too much self-promotional material, music of which is routine. There are claims which are both unsourced and not informative. For instance, where is the evidence that his mother was a poet or his father a civil engineer? National merit scholar semifinalist is not major, as are his other high school details. Please trim, or another editor could (should) remove vast parts.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thank you for taking the time and caring! Please check the page now. Are there more specific areas that you think should be removed? I added book containing a biography of his mother and some of her poetry, and I removed some high school stuff. I also made the section about the book more neutral. Anything else you think needs work? Gratefully, Fortunaa (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're helping to make it a better page. Your attention is part of what makes Wikipedia reliable, and I'm grateful. Now I wonder if you would also consider taking down the flag if I *resolve* to work with you through what you consider to be the page's issues? You an I can think together about what content you consider "routine," for example, or which claims are unsourced. Fortunaa (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely moving in the right direction. I am happy to work with you on this, although I may not respond that quickly to everything.
I reduced the flags, and left an amended not on the talk page. I want to avoid another editor coming in and just removing stuff -- yes, there are people who just do that!
Quick comments:
Does the book on Mary's poetry say that Charles was (is) a civil engineer?
You can't use the physics tree as a source (annoying, I don't like that but it is the concensus).
For his senior thesis the link is better as a reference (also I don't like it, but it is the concensus). A few other places you have links in the body.
Ref [11], does it really verify that he worked with Falicov? It may be better to use his thesis [12] which I expect has a statement.
Keep the Fellow elections, they matter. I would remove the local Georgetown awards as they are not big enough. More can be less as he has other much more significant awards.
Remove the NIRT award info, everyone who is any good gets funding from NSF.
I am unclear how relevant it is that he offers the class over the summer
External links go right at the end (before categories and any templates).
1. Does the book on Mary's poetry say that Charles was (is) a civil engineer? I took it all out.
2. You can't use the physics tree as a source (annoying, I don't like that but it is the concensus). Removed.
3. For his senior thesis the link is better as a reference (also I don't like it, but it is the concensus). A few other places you have links in the body. I'm not clear on why what I have isn't enough here. Clarify?
4. Ref [11], does it really verify that he worked with Falicov? It may be better to use his thesis [12] which I expect has a statement. I actually went to ProQuest and viewed the thesis just now, and Falicov is on it. I moved the citation up.
4. Keep the Fellow elections, they matter. I would remove the local Georgetown awards as they are not big enough. More can be less as he has other much more significant awards. Removed.
5. Remove the NIRT award info, everyone who is any good gets funding from NSF. I don't see it here.
6. I am unclear how relevant it is that he offers the class over the summer. Removed.
7. External links go right at the end (before categories and any templates). Moved.
NIRT = "nanotechnology interdisciplinary research team" (we use jargon all the time). The link policy is at WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is like a well-meaning but slow moving herd of elephants -- unless the issue really matters you have to get out of the way of the herd or get trampled to death. (I recently pushed back a little against this link policy, but got nowhere.) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I only started doing it because I have the Wikipedia app, and it prompted me to start writing them for articles that have no description. I never would have thought of it on my own! Every few days the app reminds me to write more of them, so I started doing it on bus rides, etc. It didn't even occur to me that there would be a style page, so thank you for pointing it out. Oh-Fortuna! (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the app wasn't what prompted me to edit the Enrica Rosanna description, though. I actually created that page and I keep pecking at it when I get a minute. She deserves a longer and more detailed page, so thank you for helping to make it better. Another editor came along right after you and made the short description even shorter! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Oh-Fortuna! (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
