User talk:Ipigott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 1: January 2007 to January 2010, Archive 2: January 2010 to January 2011, Archive 3: January 2011 to June 2011, Archive 4: June 2011 to November 2011, Archive 5: December 2011 to August 2012, Archive 6: September 2012 to December 2012, Archive 7: December 2012 to May 2013, Archive 8: June 2013 to November 2013, Archive 9: November 2013 to August 2014, Archive 10: September 2014 to February 2015, Archive 11:March 2015 to August 2015, Archive 12: March 2015 to August 2015, Archive 13: September 2015 to May 2016, Archive 14: June 2016 to December 2016, Archive 15: January 2017 to August 2017, Archive 16: September 2017 to March 2018, Archive 17: April 2018 to September 2018, Archive 18: October 2018 to August 2019, Archive 19: September 2019 to January 2020, Archive 20: February 2020 to June 2020, Archive 21: July 2020 to September 2020

Alma Vessells John[edit]

Can you give this one a once-over before I nominate it? Thanks! If you are too busy, no worries. SusunW (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: Virtually nothing to do on this one but please continue to send me your latest articles. They always make interesting reading.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I honestly appreciate your going over them, as many of them develop so piecemeal that I want to insure they are cohesive. I loved writing her. She was truly a fascinating subject and required a lot of detective work. I cannot believe a formal biography of her doesn't exist somewhere. SusunW (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your advice on Terje G. Simonsen article[edit]

Ian, hi. Please take a look at Draft:Terje G. Simonsen. It is a properly stated WP:COI contribution about a Norwegian non-fiction author. I would like to know how it could/should be developed in order to improve the chances of passing an AfC review. Thanks! Peter. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As it seems to have been submitted for review, I don't think I should intervene at this stage. Let's see how it goes.--Ipigott (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Mary Dees[edit]

If you get a chance can you look this one over? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: You obviously meant Mary Dee. Well researched article with good illustrations. Ready for GA, I think.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh how silly of me. I had just finished writing to Rosie to have her check the hat note, as I am still not comfortable creating disamb pages and wasn't sure if I'd done it right. Glad you figured it out. Thanks for your help. I do appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello. Your recent edit to List of Indian writers appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 09:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, Alexf: for the time being it is Priya Kumar (writer). Should be moved shortly.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


@Ipigott and SusunW: You both are far more knowledgeable than I am in regards to AfD's because you have been here longer. So, I have a question. How common is it to see a closer delete an article when only a third of the votes are to delete?Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska AfD is not a vote, so it does and it doesn't matter how may ayes and neighs there are per se. What matters is how many of those votes directly and specifically relate to policy. So technically you could have 10 votes for keep which cite no policy and one vote for delete which was strongly rooted in policy and it could close with a decision to delete. It is supposed to be a discussion of whether based on our guidelines and policies an article can be justified. I typically avoid the platform, as it is a drama board. I figure if an article is deleted and there are adequate sources, it can be recreated. If I do weigh in, it is usually because the article easily meets GNG and by listing various sources I can prove that. SusunW (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: There has been a mass of AfD's specifically targeting articles on Indigenous people. If all 16 votes cast cite policy with five stating their subjective opinion is no, nine saying their subjective opinion is yes and two stating their subjective opinion leans keep but will agree to a redirect, how can the consensus be to delete? That is not a consensus. By definition, a consensus is a majority opinion. If the closer wants to base their decision on their own subjective opinion then so be it but don't say the consensus was to delete. That is disingenuous and leads others to doubt the integrity of the closer or even that of the encyclopedia and processes in general.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Tsistunagiska, this happens more often than you might think in cases when the closing administrator believes the "Keep" comments do not comply with rules established for the sector under consideration. One of the most common occurrences is in women's sports, especially for footballers, or if the sources are not considered to be sufficient. Is there any particular case we should be looking at? Sometimes decisions can be overruled, especially if articles can be expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ipigott: This AfD This individual IS Wounded Knee. There would have been no Wounded Knee without this person being present and the actions they took. And the "one event" argument doesn't hold any water with me when I found hundreds of articles about persons whose only "claim to fame" was one event. There is too much cherry picking here for my liking and quite frankly I'm tired of biased opinion overruling common sense. That's what Wikipedia is turning into. A bunch of biased opinions with no root in common sense. Either this is an encyclopedia that is inclusive of historical/current facts based in sourced references applied with some relative amount of common sense or a loosely tied bunch of OP-ED's favoring certain races, ethnicity and genders while furthering the discrimination against those who have historically faced it. As I have stated before, I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not here to right the wrongs of the past but to be an active and willing participant in furthering it is disgusting and discouraging, to say the least.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Tsistunagiska I would take it to the review board if you feel strongly about keeping it and start gathering sources. I don't know where that is, but I am sure if you go to the how to page for AfD's you can find it. I cannot see the previous article, so cannot help you evaluate it. One-event, is nonsense (Lawnchair Larry), as is the argument that anyone has to have done anything significant, i.e. Paris Hilton/Kim Kardashian, and your best defense is to write strong articles well founded in references. The problem for women and many minorities is references are difficult to find, they weren't studied by academics until the 1970s so there is little reference material except newspapers, which published for the most part mainstream news and ignored women, American Indians, Latinos, Asians, blacks, etc. etc. etc. In my early days on here I used to try to work at AfD, but I realized it is a time sink and has regular editors who have zero understanding that the history they were spoonfed was biased and selective. I'd rather spend my time creating and expanding articles with good referencing than try to argue about whether they have merit. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

{od} @SusunW and Ipigott: We convinced Scotty to draftify the article to allow us to research and add sources as we find them. He graciously obliged. here is the draft.

Ugh Tsistunagiska, clearly in need of some attention. First off, why in the world would you use a clearly biased source from 1891 for anything? Perhaps as a footnote, certainly not in the body. "The relative accuracy of the sources must also be considered, for it is apparent that some of them are more credible than others", is a direct quote from this source about the events. I'd start with sources here and try to use only scholarly sources and delete anything that is web based unless you are sure of its authority. SusunW (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Netherzone, DiamondRemley39, Lightburst, Oncamera, and GreenC: See the above suggestions by SusunW. Susun, Thank you so much for taking time from researching your items to look for me. Let's see if any of the information contained helps our cause.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello @SusunW: and @Ipigott:~! @Tsistunagiska: SunsunW is correct, that it is an !vote not a vote, meaning the consensus is based on the qualitative not quantitative value of the arguments & justification for keep and delete based on policy and guidelines. It's a debate. I left you a message on your talk page a few days ago (Heading: September/October 2020, don't know if you saw it) regarding some essays that are very helpful in deletion discussions, they are: Arguments to make in deletion discussions, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. In general, concise statements grounded in policy/guidelines rather than walls of lengthy text can be very effective. Netherzone (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Daisy Yen Wu[edit]

The most detailed sources about her are all in Chinese, but I think I've done okay. I did only put her publications in English in the selected works. Not sure about that decision. Your thoughts? If you have time to look it over, that'd be great. SusunW (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: I think you've done a good job of combing the Chinese and English accounts. It might be worthwhile citing 营养概论 (Introduction to Nutrition, 1929) among the selected works.--Ipigott (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ipigott Thanks Ian. The original was published only in his name. He updated it in 1934?, I can find no record of the Taiwanese version. Should I list it as her editing it and him being the author? or just list the 1974 version (I do have a source for the publishing house) and list them as co-authors? SusunW (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
SusunW You could perhaps include a note with the above explanations, citing the original publication and the later version from 1974. It's really up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Danièle Aron-Rosa[edit]

1) I cannot believe no article has been written on her in French or English, but 2) I'm probably going to need some help, as you know I struggle with French. For instance, this says get it somewhere else? Also this (Italian) I believe says her heritage is Tunisian/Jewish? and does this say she married in May 1958? I wish I could find an article that says that, or frankly anything on her early life or career trajectory. Putting dates to places she worked would certainly help, as to my reading it is more promotional without concrete dates. Please feel free to jump in on it if you'd like. SusunW (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: Yes, it certainly seems to indicate there is a photograph of her wedding in May 1958. I'm a bit tied up with visitors today. I'll see how it goes. If not, tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries Ian, whenever is fine. SusunW (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
SusunW: Can't see there's anything about Danièle in the Italian piece. You can find more details here, showing she was born on 15 October 1934 in Tunis, married Jean-Jacques Aron in 1958, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks for the book reference. On the Italian piece, its on page 7 last column on the right. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
With your lovely source, I was able to take it live. I didn't list publications, nor go into a lot of detail about her research, but there is enough there for someone to know who she is and hopefully someone who gets the medical part will be able to assist. Thank you so very much! SusunW (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Update > October 2020[edit]

WP:WOSO News: October 2020

Chelsea striker Bethany England scoring the winning goal in the team's 2-1 win against Arsenal at the 2019–20 FA Women's League Cup, February 29, 2020.
Chelsea striker Bethany England scoring the winning goal in the team's 2-1 win against Arsenal at the 2019–20 FA Women's League Cup, February 29, 2020.

Hello WOSO editors!

What a year to be alive. As usual (but perhaps even moreso since there have been unexpected quarantines), there has been a lot of activity on player, team, league and tournament-related Wikipedia articles with all of the worldwide coverage of women's football / soccer. Great work!

Fall Focus: FA WSL articles

You may have noticed lots of great things going on for the top English league this year: the FA WSL. More (international!) broadcasts, top international player signings, improved media coverage, and increased viewership. Let's keep the momentum brewing, shall we?

Here's a sampling of articles that could use creation, expansion or updating. What will you commit to working on?

Historical Topics

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/FA WSL to collaborate and organize with other editors.

Every little bit helps! Thanks for your contributions!

Did you know...

WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY (which only includes the players in two currently active women's leagues)? Often times there is enough media coverage that meets WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. For more information, see WP:WOSO#Notability and be sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}

Current and upcoming seasons for top-division leagues

Have some new articles in mind or see some that need improvement? Add them to the Open Tasks.

Was an article you worked on nominated for deletion? See:

Want some tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors?
Leave a message on the task force talk page.

Thank you for your continued contributions to articles related to women's football / soccer (WOSO)!

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force

Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Can you archive your talk page, my iPad is super slow here, thanks. Looking about some of the famous polyglots typically take at least 2 years to become properly fluent (C1-2 level) in a language, longer for languages like Japanese and Hungarian. Most of the claims online about hours needed to attain it are grossly underestimated. 500 hours is nothing! A solid core can typically be achieved in a year. There's a big difference between deciphering text and being highly fluent at writing and speaking.† Encyclopædius 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius: Thanks for alerting me. I'll take care of it. The page seems to expand more and more quickly each time. But even with an iPad you should be able to jump to the bottom by using the TOC.
Around two years to become really fluent seems reasonable to me. The younger you are, the quicker it goes. I once coordinated an experiment teaching English to five-year-olds in France. It was amazing how well they could communicate after three or four months with sessions of just 30 minutes a day. Despite our success, there was no follow-up as there were so few primary school teachers in France who could speak English fluently (rather than just write and translate).
Moving from one language to a similar one (e.g. Spanish to Italian) is obviously much easier than trying to acquire a completely different language. I think Danish must be one of the easiest languages for English speakers to learn: lots of similar words, only two genders, far fewer verb forms than most other languages, quite a bit of flexibility in sentence structure, etc. I think most people find it difficult because of the pronunciation — they simply cannot understand what is said. And once you learn Danish, you can get by pretty well in Norwegian and even Swedish.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes young children under 10 have an astounding capacity for learning which far exceeds adults, you'll find most of the world class classical musicians started very young, some as young as 3! As I've progressed I'm finding that forming sentences in speech and writing together is the only way I can really remember a lot of vocabulary long term, particularly in languages like German which have a huge amount of similarly spelled words. Short sentences comprising two or three words ot learn work best I think in the early stages to build vocabulary. Reading is a great way to build passive vocabulary and understanding but the real nitty gritty in my opinion is being able to recall and reproduce the words in the right contexts. Which takes a lot of time and means I have less time to spend on other languages. I will continue spending small amounts of time each week in reading and listening to the six languages I'm focusing on but I'm focusing on building my French up to an intermediate level at the moment and speaking a lot! Spanish I've reached a stage where I can understand a large amount of what is being said without subtitles, though varies on the speed and topic of discussion!† Encyclopædius 10:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sentences like Je veux manger un morceau de poisson pour le déjeuner. Je suis très content de mes progrès! Je entendu une forte détonation! † Encyclopædius 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for an AfC declines rescue rewrite[edit]

Hello, I used the Women in Red tool to find articles that were not accepted for creation. I didn't write the original but there were tons of reliable sources so I gave it a try to rewrite it. I have not myself ever successfully gotten an article through AfC and I would love to get some feedback on what I've got. Would you mind having a look and/or pointing me in the direction for more feedback in my Talk before I submit it? It's in my sandbox: [[1]] Thank you for your time and efforts. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Confessions of a Talk Page Stalker - @TheMusicExperimental:I found the article you wrote enlightening, especially when looking at the sources and doing a search myself. I avoid the AfC process. if possible. A lot of reviewers think an article should be ready to nominate for "GA" status in order for it to be accepted. That's just my opinion, of course. The article has an uphill climb to make, unfortunately, in today's Wikipedia universe. I'd fight for it though. How many skaters have an exhibit in the Smithsonian? That's so cool. There is a "war" in this encyclopedia between deletionist/purist and inclusionist/realist that is constant. I would write as well an article as I could. Cite as many independent sources with a splash of primary sources {if found). You did good asking for help. No one better than those in WIR project. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: thank you for taking the time to read it! I'm on the fence re: AfC as well. I feel like if I can get it through the AfC then it will be less likely to get immediately be-trolled with GNG/AfDs. I may be wrong though. Either way, I'm appreciative of any and all feedback on making it good to help get it to the finish line. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)