Jump to content

User talk:Nnev66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women in Red

[edit]

Hi there, Nnev66, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you have again become active on Wikipedia and have been improving a number of women's biographies. When you feel ready to create biographies yourself, you'll find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules. I've taken the liberty of adding the Women in Red user box to your user page. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. Trying to figure out things on my own but also want to find communities of Wikipedia's to chat with where appropriate. I hope soon to be creating a wiki page for a notable woman scientist. Nnev66 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find we are a very cooperative community. Feel free to comment on our WIR talk page where you are welcome to take part in discussions. And I'll always be ready to respond to anything you come up with on my own talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did my first page via the Wikipedia Review mechanism. Not a scientist but someone I thought should have a page: Draft:Rachel Cowan. Not sure I'd go through this mechanism again as there appears to be a backlog but wanted to see what it would be like to go through the reviewer process. Hope to identify a woman scientist soon. Nnev66 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nnev66. So glad to see you contributing to the Women in Red project. I just wanted to explain why I reverted several of your recent changes to the bio about Diane Koken. I did so because your recent, good-faith edits removed several useful citations from the article with the rationale, "remove references with no information: "'M. Diane Koken,' Milton Hershey School." and "'M. Diane Koken,' Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company." Unforuntately, when you did that you removed citations that actually serve important functions. (Those shortened citations may have seemed as if they did not contain important information, but each was designed let future Wikipedia editors know that those cited paragraphs had reference sources to back up the content presented there. This is particularly important when writing and editing biographies of women for the Women in Red project because women's biographies on Wikipedia have had a history of being challenged and deleted because they "did not contain enough citations," regardless of how prominent the biographical subjects were/are. Being a relatively new editor to Wikipedia and the Women in Red project, you may not have realized this; so that's why I just wanted to reach out to you.) Also, just fyi. The types of abridged citations that you deleted actually did have valid formatting (based on longtime academic standards, as well as Wikipedia's current Manual of Style). So, I've replaced three of the citations you removed for these reasons. There's always a bit of a learning curve with Wikipedia, but I know I can safely say that your contributions are genuinely welcome. Again, thanks so much for helping with the Women in Red project! -- 47thPennVols (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. It was confusing to me but I see now. Thanks for explaining.
I find it more straightforward if a reference is used more than once on Wikipedia to use <ref name=something> and then that can be used thereafter so that multiple instances are collapsed in the References section. I just did this now. I don't feel super strongly about it if you want to revert. But it makes it easier to read the References and see how many unique ones there are.
I do understand the challenges of writing women's biographies in Wikipedia and to make sure everything is properly referenced. Apologies for not understanding you were using Ibid - I'm used to seeing this with books when referencing different page numbers. Nnev66 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There are so many ways of doing things on Wikipedia that it can get confusing for all of us, no matter how long we've been editing. (There are also some Wikipedians who are laser-focused on formatting citations a specific way and spend a great deal of time reformatting citations to their preferred way of doing things, but that's not my focus. Quite honestly, I'm more concerned about just making sure that the articles I work on are just so well-cited that it's nearly impossible for anyone to contest the notability of the subject or subject matter, particularly when it comes to the women I write about because of Wikipedia's problems with keeping bios posted and intact.) So, if you'd like to reformat the citations, that's fine with me. I'll just ask that, moving forward, you not remove citations in a way that leaves paragraphs uncited. I wish you many, many years of happy researching, writing and editing! - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will not remove references again - appreciate you taking the time to explain to me. Yeah, I do like a certain kind of reference formatting. I’ve also created or significantly added to pages and want to do a good job with writing and referencing with reliable secondary sources. I plan to write more Wiki pages for women. You’ll also likely be seeing me around some on Philly & PA political pages… Thanks for all the work you’ve been doing! Nnev66 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news! WikiProject Pennsylvania can always use help from skilled editors like you (and Women in Red really can benefit from more of us creating bios of women who have been overlooked for far too long). Every time I find myself thinking, "I'm sure SHE already has a bio," I end up being shocked to find out that some historian, scientist or prominent political figure whose name was well-covered in the news still hasn't found a place on Wikipedia. On the plus side, there are plenty of opportunities for us to write about unsung heroes. - 47thPennVols (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice a notable woman scientist without one and don't have time let me know and I could potentially take it on. Nnev66 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently whittling away at the historians on the Women in Red academic list (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Academics). There are a number of scientists on that list that might be of interest to you and the list of researchers (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Researchers) looks like there might be some fascinating subjects for you as well. - 47thPennVols (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ellen Bernstein

[edit]

On 7 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ellen Bernstein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ellen Bernstein was called the "birthmother of Jewish environmentalism"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Bernstein. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ellen Bernstein), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rachel Cowan (April 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Describing a modern person uncritically as a 'prophet' is not neutral language.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Nnev66! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rachel Cowan (April 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
References are made up of mostly obituaries. Is there anything that talks about her in-depth prior to that time?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
CNMall41 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rachel Cowan has been accepted

[edit]
Rachel Cowan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeff Yass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WHYY. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. WHYY has news articles also but hard to say if they're associated with the radio or TV link - may be used for both. I suppose I could just unlink but I'm OK with keeping it as either one would give more info about WHYY. Nnev66 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Conservative synagogues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Office of the Budget moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Pennsylvania Office of the Budget. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at all the Pennsylvania Department pages you'll see that it's similar to those. I think the bolus should be looked at as a whole and not individually. Nnev66 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pennsylvania Office of the Budget has been accepted

[edit]
Pennsylvania Office of the Budget, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Pbritti (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Barbara Ruhemann

[edit]

Thank you very much for drafting such a nice little article on this interesting historical scientist! I accepted it and moved it to mainspace just now. Felix QW (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Felix QW! I keep my eye on women scientist draft articles and ended up going down a wiki hole on this one. I see in the past ten years or so more books are coming out about scientists in this time period so hopefully someone else can expand if they find additional sources. Nnev66 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be interested in improving it further, I would recommend extending the lead section so that it adequately summarises the content. Then it would satisfy all the requirements of a B-class article and would be well on the way to be a good article. One could also consider suggesting it for WP:Did You Know, as her life is indeed rather remarkable. I'd be happy to help with either! Felix QW (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like to improve/extend the lede but don't fully understand who she was and what to emphasize about her life. She was clearly a German physicist with expertise in low temperature physics at the time this area was taking off. She had Communist sympathies and may have been a Communist member or stalwart but nonetheless had to flee given the environment. I can't find much about her anthropological efforts other than a mention in a Nature article by Bernal about a symposium and reading correspondence with Haldane, although clearly she was more invested in the exchange than he was. And then there are some primary sources she wrote which are not cited much although I don't know what to make of that from the time period.
Note this article is written from sources where there are a few pages, a few sentences, or even just a single sentence about the subject and the dots have to be connected, which I tried to do. This is the first article I've worked on like this. I may try to ping the IP address who started the article to see if they're willing/able to add more as I don't have the book they cite. It looks like Martin Ruhemann should also have a page. I'll keep an eye on this and when I have some time will see if I can improve it. Hopefully others who may have other sources, especially books, will add to it. Thank you for the invitation to improve the article and get it more noticed. Nnev66 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps I could get the book from the Bavarian State Library in Munich the next time I'm there, should you not get a response from the IP. They are pretty well stocked, so if you need anything else (or any support with German language sources), I can always see what I can do. Felix QW (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, and thank you very much Nnev66 for the huge work you did on the draft, I am so glad to find it considerably extended, enhanced, and finally accepted ! I am sorry to give news so late : I am totally new to wikipedia, and submitted this draft in a rush (I am currently writing my PhD dissertation in epistemology and history of human sciences). Your discussion made me discover the Women in Red project, which is perfectly matching my intentions when submitting this draft about Barbara Ruhemann : I think I will create an account in order to contribute further and share with you some informations. I tried to collect informations about her publications in chemistry, anthropology, her translations and her activities in the Communist Party of Great Britain (mostly in relation to Nigeria and decolonisation). My problem is that her contributions in anthropology clearly lack coverage (beyond wikipedia), and as I am working on applied mathematics in anthropology from an historical and epistemological point of view, I hope to mend this one day with at least an academic paper. If I understand wikipedia's policy well, this would make me unfit to use my own results in order to extend her page, and I would leave to others the task to appreciate its relevance. Anyway, I can only confirm that wikipedia was clearly lacking informations about this outstanding scientific personnality, and that she deserves further research. Thank you again for your work ! I contact you soon to share my few findings. 2A01:E0A:259:8390:B91A:276D:D187:7617 (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to let you know how to contact me now that I created an account, I am 19BGP). 19BGP (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @19BGP for reaching out about this page and letting me know you discovered the Women in Red project! It's great to have more people contributing who care about this. I found everything I could on the internet about Barbara Ruhemann without getting to a physical library. While it was generous for @Felix QW to offer to go to a library in Bavaria, it sounds like you may have more information that could give insight into her Communist party activities/leanings and how that may have informed her career change to anthropology. I know for women it was tough staying in the physical sciences during this time period. Not sure why you couldn't add to the wikipedia page if you were able to publish your research in a reliable secondary source. It would be OK to use the sources you gathered to enhance the page so why not an academic paper you wrote after synthesizing all of these sources? I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules and policies but from my reading there are certainly gray lines and acknowledgments that most people create pages for people are areas that they are interested in, which is a mild COI. I have Barbara Ruhemann in my watch list so I'll know if you contribute. I'm really curious what you find out if you have the time. Nnev66 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia.
    Check the guidelines before you start.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mordechai Liebling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Theological Seminary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

  • TBD

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

[edit]
Thanks for the helpful creation of Richard Flagan! Klbrain (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Jim Harrity

[edit]

There's really not much useful history in the original deleted article to merge, as it literally consisted solely of a single sentence stating that he exists as a city councillor without containing even the slightest detail about him beyond that. Which, of course, is the reason why it got deleted: city councillors can obviously keep substantive and well-sourced articles that go into detail about their careers, but aren't "inherently" notable enough that we would need to keep an article that just said "he is a person who exists, the end", which is all that the original version was saying.

So obviously you're free to recreate it if you can add more substance and sourcing about him than the original version did, but there wasn't really anything valuable in the original version to work from. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing that. That’s what happened the last time I asked for an AfD article to be restored to draft, ie I had to wipe the whole thing and start again. I’ll draft a new article if you don’t think it’s worth restoring the original. Nnev66 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

[edit]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Nnev66! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nnev66&oldid=1254737868"