Jump to content

User talk:MurielMary

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PackardTwin8 (talk | contribs) at 16:40, 28 March 2020 (→Draft:Emily Tyra). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/2015 + 2016 Archive /2017 Archive / 2018 Archive / 2019 Archive

revisit please

Dear MurielMary

Please review Draft:Noha Nabil Have removed the citation you recommended to be removed of Instagram & Twitter. Please approve my article. Thank you so much and all the best!

revisit please

Dear MurielMary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shm55 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Draft:Franziska_Emmerling Clarification to your comment has been added to the page.

Thank you in advance and all best!

revisit please

Dear MurielMary!

Please review Draft:OLENA MOSHENETS Your comments to the post have been taken into account.

Thank you, all the best!


revisit please

Please revisit Draft:Hunt & Fish Club

It alread has at least five full length rs articles devoted to it.

That clearly qualifies it for an article under the terms of gng

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E010:1100:21B5:6160:D766:E4A4 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aldi Brothers for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldi Brothers 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 Hidar.ayube (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just thank you

Mr.Muriel Recently I asked for your help in an article about deletion and you actually helped me to edit the article and revise it. You are one of the few here who really help and not just review. I just don't know how to thank you for helping me, I am new here and I am trying to adapt into Wikipedia . Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidar.ayube (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi MurielMary. Thank you for facilitating the publication of the Rosalind Gersten Jacobs page. Your edits and assistance in expediting the review is very much appreciated. I'm working now to upload images to enhance the page. If I use a photograph of her by Man Ray, what do I have to do to insure that the image is accepted? Do I need permission of the Man Ray Estate?Gaw54 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gaw54, nice to hear from you! It's good to have Rosalind's page published now! With regards to getting permission to use an image, I'm not really familiar with the ins and outs of how to deal with this situation. I suggest you ask at the Village Pump (like a helpdesk page) on the Wikimedia Commons site (that's where images are uploaded). Here's the page to post your question on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Village_pump/Copyright

All the best! MurielMary (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MurielMay. I'm following up on my recent article with an entry on a woman whose life intersected with Rosalind Gersten Jacobs's story, Noma Copley. While she is the co-named founder of the Noma and William Copley Foundation, which is well documented, her story (unlike her then husband's story), has slipped through the cracks. So I made it my job to fix that. I would very much appreciate your taking a look at the draft Wiki entry I just submitted and facilitate its acceptance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noma_Copley. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide.Gaw54 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A to-do addition maybe

Hello MurielMary. I see you have a comprehensive to do list so maybe you don't really need me cluttering it up. However, there's an interesting lady, Fanny Fantham, who you might be interested in adding. Fanthams Peak on Mount Taranaki was named after her. She wss the first woman to climb it, and she worked in munitions factory and as a nurse in England in WW1. There's a bit about here ----> https://www.sooty.nz/ffantham.html Regards Moriori (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moriori thanks so much for the tip, she definitely sounds interesting!! I'll add her to my list! MurielMary (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation error

Hi Muriel Mary. Me again. I just tried to update the Gersten Jacobs page with the citation of an article that came out today in Women's Wear Daily. An error message appeared and I can't seem to figure out how to fix it. Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks!Gaw54 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gaw54, I just looked at the article and the added citation and it looks fine to me! What kind of error message was it? If you get it again, feel free to let me know and I might recognise it. MurielMary (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Muriel Mary. I really appreciate you approving my article today. Thanks for the friendly welcome to Wikipedia. MsHorton (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MsHorton, you're welcome! Wang is a tricky woman to write about as her career was before the internet age and it looks like there are not many online sources about her. Now that the draft is published though, there might be other editors who can access other information about her. By the way, if you are interested in creating articles about notable women, there is a group of editors called Women in Red that works on creating articles - you can find the page by searching Wikipedia for Women in Red. All the best! MurielMary (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving the Aimée de Jongh page!

I've fleshed this out a bit, based on your helpful suggestions. Jojuj (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good! I added some categories too. MurielMary (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ayanga

Hi! I improved the article with citations, hopefully now it can pass. he is definitely notable. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 21:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Muriel Mary. I really appreciate you approving my article about Prof Walker! Many thanks for all that you do! I can see I'm not the only one finding you very helpful and supportive! Valeria.depaiva (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vera Chapman (New Zealand artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vera Chapman (New Zealand artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Chapman (New Zealand artist) 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. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still under construction - it was only published a few minutes ago. MurielMary (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ann E. Killebrew

Hi NotButtigieg IMO the draft doesn't make it clear how and why Killebrew's work is notable. What has she achieved that other people in her field have not, for example? What breakthroughs has she made etc? You are welcome to edit the draft to add more detail and re-submit, or re-submit as is, for another reviewer to look at. MurielMary (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vita Kin

Hello! I saw your response to a recent review of this article. In accordance with your comments, I have reworked an article about Ukrainian designer Vita kin to make it encyclopedic. I added new information to the biography, supported by links in the media. Also, I added information about the awards and worked on the design of the article. I would be happy if you would consider applying for inclusion in the mainspace. Thanks! 192.71.166.25 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VPN blocked. This is likely Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan trying to socially engineer you into moving their spam into mainspace. MER-C 09:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Shojai

My opinion is this draft should not have been approved. References 1-5 are interviews, and thus do not contribute to notability. The other two refs do little to establish notability either. Perhaps revert to draft so the creator can work on finding better references? David notMD (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Purdah (film)

Hello! Based on your suggestions, I have refined the sources for Purdah by removing the IMDB and Amazon citations, and by including some others. There is currently a primary source citation to the website of the Oscar-qualifying Cinequest Film Festival that verifies that Purdah premiered there. There is also a citation of the article about the film's world premiere on the notable film trade publication, Screen Anarchy, in addition to a citation of the film's write up in PRWeb about the film's Los Angeles premiere at the famous Chinese Theatres in Hollywood. I've also listed some of the film's festival awards and nominations as well. There's also links to several positive reviews from recognized film critics who are some of the select few approved Rotten Tomatoes film critics. I've fleshed out the rest of the article and honed it as well. I hope it can be approved, or if not, I would love any additional feedback. Thanks so much! MovieDude2019 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tina Antolini

Hi, Thank you for taking a look at my draft article (Draft:Tina Antolini) a few days ago! I've made some tweaks to it, would you mind seeing if it's in a better condition now? Many thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:50:23, 15 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 162.197.95.88


Draft:Ethan_Greenbaum

Hi-thanks for reviewing my draft == Draft:Ethan_Greenbaum ==

My understanding is the draft is rejected for "not having significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

I'm new to wikipedia publishing and a little confused as to what would qualify? There are links to articles about the artist in Forbes Magazine, Bomb Magazine, Interview Magazine and a review of a group show that mentions the artist in The New York Times as well as links to significant exhibitions at major venues like Hauser and Wirth and The Aldrich Museum. Having reviewed other artist wikipedia pages, it's unclear to me why this page is being rejected. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Also-do you advise listing print publications for which there are no web links? (i.e. Modern Painters Magazine etc).

Thanks so much

Fortyfifthroad (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

162.197.95.88 (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with new category

Hi there, Muriel - it's some time since we have been in touch but I always appreciate your recognition of my stats on WiR. Inspired by David Eppstein's Category:Native American women academics, I thought it might be useful to have Category:New Zealand Māori women academics. I have tried to populate it as best I can but I am not at all sure all the names are those of women (here I often relied on Wikidata) or that I have added all the names of women who should be included. I would really appreciate any assistance you have time to offer.--Ipigott (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the slow reply, I've been out of town on summer holiday! Thanks for the heads-up about this category, I will take a look. I think Stuartyeates has written a lot about women academics in NZ and it would be good for him to look over it as well. Stuart, what do you think? MurielMary (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work User:Ipigott! I've written about every female prof in New Zealand (or all that I can find) and additional written about every Māori and Pacifica prof in the country. Most of these articles have my fingerprints on them so the lack of the category is probably my fault, I should have created it before. There's some complexity here separating ethnic Cook Islanders from Māori people, I don't usually add people to the Māori cats until I've found an attribution to an iwi / hapu. I also write gendered-pronoun free biographies, so quickly sorting articles into gendered cats may be slower than it might be, sorry. It's also worth noting that there are people like Karl Pulotu-Endemann who don't fit well into cats like these. (Thanks for the notification User:MurielMary.) Stuartyeates (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting... (Ludwika Ogorzelec page)

Hello, I would so appreciate it if you could review my revisions of the entry on Ludwika Ogorzelec that I have uploaded on drafts weeks ago. Thanks for moving the process along! I implemented your recommendation, and I think the page is ready to go live. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin54 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cai Wenjing has been accepted

Cai Wenjing, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MurielMary (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Christchurch's residential red zone

Kia ora and hello! I am writing to you because you are a Wikipedian from Christchurch, who has edited the Christchurch Wikipedia meetup. I have just finished creating a new article for Christchurch's residential red zone following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. However, I am an American who has never visited New Zealand, let alone Christchurch, so I would find it helpful for Wikipedians from Christchurch to look over this article. In particular, I am hoping that someone will be able to contribute an image of the zone after demolition and removal of the houses that were there, especially an aerial image.

Thank you! I am an urban planning student with an interest in natural disaster preparation and recovery, so I saw this article as a hole that I could fill on Wikipedia.

Best,

Riverhugger (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Riverhugger, that looks like a great article! Thanks for creating it! I'll ping a couple of other Christchurch editors here as they are sure to be interested in it too and may have photos to add: Schwede66 and Podzemnik. Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mōrena my friend, that last edit of yours did not trigger a ping. It's described here but basically, you need to create the notification link and place the signature in the same edit. Wikipedia is full of hidden surprises, eh? Schwede66 18:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

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

Daisy Edgar-Jones

Re: your comments here: This actress is the lead actress in a current drama series and to boot has the lead role in the television adaptation of one of the most successful novels in the world last year. This is such a flying pass of WP:NACTOR it would be a WP:SNOW keep at WP:AFD - in what universe, and on what possible basis, would she be a candidate for speedy deletion or PROD? Suggesting that there "just isn't any evidence of notability" and making PROD/speedy nominations displays a worrying lack of understanding of WP:NACTOR and notability guidelines in general for someone approving or declining AfC drafts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly disagree with each other on the quality of this article. However, as I've already stated, neither this page nor the talk page of the PROD project are the appropriate places to discuss the quality of the article and the person's notability. I am still trying to get an appropriate page for the discussion to take place on and meanwhile you are mocking me in quite an inappropriate way. I take exception to the repeated mocking tone that you are using in your messages to me e.g. "you're a comedian" and "in what universe". This tone is not the appropriate tone for one editor to another and I hope you will desist from continuing to use it either with me or with other editors. MurielMary (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone so completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's deletion processes that they don't know how to nominate an article for deletion (and repeatedly attempt to use means designed for uncontroversial cases to nominate a clear and unarguable pass of WP:NACTOR despite being reverted by multiple longstanding editors) should do some large-scale guideline and process reading before attempting to judge notability at Articles for Creation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find your attitude rude, condescending, patronising, accusatory (you seem to be convinced that I am incompetent, saying that I "attempt" to judge notability, that I'm "completely unfamiliar with processes" for example) and unbecoming of a longstanding WP editor like yourself. Your comments are also inaccurate, as my actions have not been "reverted by multiple editors" (two doe not equal multiple, particularly when one of them is yourself). Your behaviour is not at all helpful in building a community of editors. I suggest you do some reading on the meaning of "good faith" and Wikipedia:Civility as you have not demonstrated any of these values tonight; in fact you have not even acknowledged that your edit summary on the article, and your initial response on the PROD talk page, were utterly rude and uncivil. MurielMary (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:AFC, you're in a unique position to bite newbies if you so choose, and declining and then, when contradicted by another editor, repeatedly trying to delete an article that is an extremely clear pass for WP:NACTOR ensures that their first experience of Wikipedia is a bad one despite having done all the right things. That's really not helpful to building a community of editors. I always try to be helpful to people who are generally trying to do the right thing, but I return jerkish behaviour to sender. Your insistence on rudely ploughing on in this course of action without so much as acknowledging the existence of WP:NACTOR when pointed out to you is where you definitively go from the former category to the latter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You really don't seem to understand the concept of Wikipedia:Civility at all! Don't you see that calling me a jerk is really really uncivil and rude? In fact this whole conversation is very much a personal attack, with you attacking me as a person over and over again. Have you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks recently? Please refresh your memory on why personal attacks aren't permitted here. MurielMary (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your freewheeling evasion of the point, whether concerning your understanding of notability policy or your newbie-biting, is really quite impressive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would have been willing to discuss those things with a reasonable, polite editor who didn't immediately ascribe bad intentions to every edit I made, but with someone like yourself who came at me fighting and calling me names right from the get-go - nope, no way, not having a discussion and opening myself up to even more abuse!! This is something for you to reflect on - to have a discussion you need to start off respectful, not start off with slinging names around. MurielMary (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People who make edits clearly against guidelines and then adamantly refuse to discuss their edits tend to find they meet with strong criticism. This is the way of things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anna Janko

OK MurielMary. This is translated from Polish Wikipedia. The text is from verified sources Anna Janko. OK. I work on the project and add sources. Greetings.Fromzamoscwith (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The Polish Wikipedia is very different than the English one, and the two have different rules about things. I do not edit the Polish Wikipedia, for I cannot speak Polish, but I imagine that it may have different sourcing criteria than we do. The English Wikipedia is fairly rigid in sourcing guidelines, while in my extremely limited experience with other wikis not all have the same rules in the same places. Good luck! -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 16:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Done. I have added sources in two sections for prizes and publications - citations where the information comes from. I also added to the bibliography, added links, and other additions. Greetings. Fromzamoscwith (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MurielMary. Fromzamoscwith (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:58:47, 11 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Gdoig


Thank you for your review MurielMary.

I have added authoritative citations to the appropriate sections, as requested.

Best wishes,

GDoig


Gdoig (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:26:52, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Gdoig


Hello MM,

Could you please re-review the submission regarding Odette Wilen. It has been 'rejected' by a different reviewer claiming 'Wiki is not a place for Memorial Pages'. This is far more than a 'memorial'. I am unrelated to OW. I was doing historical research on refeeding syndrome when I learned she OW was the only one of 39 women SOE agents from Section F who did not have her wiki bio in English, so I did some more reading and put one together. It is now referenced to many historical citations. Is the other reviewer correct? Many male SOE agents have wiki bios and achieved less. Thank you for your time. Gdoig

Gdoig (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello MurielMary,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your edits and approval of the bio on Odette Wilens. Regards Gdoig (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the help!

Thank you for your feedback on Draft Karlyn Percil . If you could give further tips on how to improved so that it is approved that would be very helpful. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:32:41, 17 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Shansav71


Hi MurielMary - can you please help me understand specifically what is missing and/or incorrect about my submission? Do I need to cite different sources or is there a problem with the tone or style of the text? This is the first article I have written for Wikipedia and I would love some some guidance to improve this article as well as for achieving success in future submissions. Thank you so much.

Shansav71 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review for Noma Copley

Hi MurielMary. I'm hoping that your previous interest in my article on Rosalind Gersten Jacobs will extend to my related entry on Noma Copley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noma_Copley. While she had a notable career as a fine arts jewelry designer and is the co-named founder of the Noma and William Copley Foundation, which is well documented, her story (unlike her then husband's story), has slipped through the cracks. So I made it my job to fix that. I would very much appreciate your taking a look at my revised Wiki entry, which was recently rejected for what was considered an informal tone. I would appreciate your feedback on the multiple revisions I've made and knowing if these concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide.Gaw54 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Usacheva

Could you please take one more look at Draft:Daria Usacheva and Daria Usacheva? You declined the draft at least twice, out of four declines of the draft, and the declines were stripped off the draft (and they say not to strip them off the draft), which appears to be a clear case of gaming the system. An article is now in article space. It doesn't appear that she yet satisfies skating notability. She is much closer to it than she was when you reviewed the draft, but her medals are still all at the junior level, which isn't in the scope of the guideline. However, I think that a before deletion search finds that she is famous for being famous as a young teenage skater, and that is enough for general notability. I don't like general notability, which is too subjective and winds up with arguments at Deletion Review, but it is policy. I don't like the fact that the sports notability guidelines and most of the other special notability guidelines contain language deferring to GNG, saying that a candidate who passes the special notability guideline is usually assumed to pass general notability. That winds up with arguments between the special notability guideline and general notability at DRV. But that is the way that the guidelines are written. However, this seems to be a real case where an article on an athlete should be accepted based on general notability. What do you think? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 at Women in Red

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thanks for your feedback; could you consider reviewing Draft:Felicity Volk again please?

Thank you for your feedback on Draft:Felicity Volk. As you have probably worked out I am new to content creation on Wikipedia and hopefully your advice on the use of inline citations has helped to improve this draft enough to publish. Reading the guidelines, I am confident that Volk warrants a wikipedia page, but my skills at preparing a reasonable page are still evolving. Any further advice would be appreciated if you still think it is lacking. Cheers. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterloone (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You and revisit please

Thank You and revisit please
Good afternoon dear Muriel Mary. I highly appreciate You review my first article about Prof Natalia Boytsun. Many thanks for all that you do! I rewrite and resubmit the article based on your comments. Thank You for your help. AndriiTereshchuk (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You and revisit please

Thank You and revisit please Good afternoon dear Muriel Mary. I highly appreciate You review my first article about Prof Natalia Boytsun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Natalia_Boytsun). Many thanks for all that you do! I rewrite and resubmit the article based on your comments. Thank You for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriiTereshchuk (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review page

Dear MurielMary. Can you please review my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marie_Rose_Abousefian Thank you.

CSVs

Hello, MurielMary. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

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

Draft:Emily Tyra

MurielMary:

Thank you for your initial comments about this article. I will review the criteria you have cited and get back to you with additional comments.

Best,

PackardTwin8 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)PackardTwin8[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MurielMary&oldid=947810229"