- 1 February 2019 at Women in Red
- 2 The Signpost: 31 January 2019
- 3 DYK for Mamie Shields Pyle
- 4 Discussion at Talk:Elena Kagan/GA1
- 5 March 2019 at Women in Red
- 6 Ruth Hanna McCormick
- 7 The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- 8 Elena Kagan
- 9 Your GA nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick
- 10 April editathons at Women in Red
- 11 April 2019
- 12 Your GA nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick
- 13 The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- 14 DYK nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick
- 15 May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
- 16 Suggest Bot
- 17 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 18 Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- 19 Three- Revert- Rule
- 20 The Signpost: 30 April 2019
- 21 Jeannette Rankin
- 22 Removing my revision on the Janet Reno page
- 23 Mae Jemison
- 24 June events with WIR
- 25 Nancy Pelosi
- 26 The Signpost: 31 May 2019
- 27 DYK for Ruth Hanna McCormick
- 28 Quarter Million Award
- 29 Collaboration on Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin
- 30 July events from Women in Red!
- 31 The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- 32 Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- 33 DYK for Mae Jemison
- 34 Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin
- 35 August 2019 at Women in Red
- 36 Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin
- 37 Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin
- 38 The Signpost: 31 July 2019
February 2019 at Women in Red
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
- Op-ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you
DYK for Mamie Shields Pyle
Discussion at Talk:Elena Kagan/GA1
March 2019 at Women in Red
Please join us for these virtual events:
Ruth Hanna McCormick
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ruth Hanna McCormick has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
- @TWofingered Typist:, thank you so much for your input! I greatly appreciate your thoughtful edits. Knope7 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
I was going to ask about the complete reversion of edits I made to the Elana Kagan page. The Wikipedia guidelines suggest against a lot of direct quotations from sources and so I was attempting to paraphrase some of these as well as add in additional information about her return to academia (adding in she was the first female dean of Harvard Law School), etc. I didn't understand the comment made with the reversions; was there something wrong with the source I cited?
- Thanks for the message, @Lbmchenry:. I reverted your edit because the Elena Kagan article is under Good Article review, as you can see on the article talk page. The article does not have excessive quoting. I checked the source you added, and it didn't add anything new and it was not better than the source already included. While I generally don't have a problem adding an extra source, it is something the reviewer had previously made an issue. I felt your edit risked creating new problems in the review process without having a clear purpose. I hope you will continue to edit and learn as you go, but I have to watch what is being done on the Kagan article carefully to make sure it doesn't derail the process. Knope7 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ruth Hanna McCormick you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
April editathons at Women in Red
(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)
Your GA nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick
The article Ruth Hanna McCormick you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ruth Hanna McCormick for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
DYK nomination of Ruth Hanna McCormick
Hello! Your submission of Ruth Hanna McCormick at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Hi. I noticed that your original edit seemed slightly misleading, as the Dean of Harvard Law was likely asking the question “Why are you here, taking the place of a man”? to arm himself when in discussion with other members of the faculty of law about admitting women to Harvard. I have made an edit, trying to make that clear, but I have worded it poorly. I have great respect for your work on the page, and I see that you aim to be neutral in controversial discussions, so I thought I’d come and ask for some help with how to word it. It is made clear that the question that Griswold posed made lots of the women feel uncomfortable, but it’s also made clear that they have accepted that he posed the question only to gain insight- not to demonstrate disdain towards their admittance to the school. I’d much appreciate it if you’d be able to reword my edit, in such a way that does both of our edits justice. Thank you ~ElsevierAnatomy~ ElsevierAnatomy (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ElsevierAnatomy: Thanks for starting a discussion. I think I would push back on your framing a bit. I am less concerned with Griswold's intentions than I am with how the comments were perceived. It's nice that Ginsburg learned years later it was not intended to be unkind, but she has repeated the story often as something that she found off putting at the time. The story does also illustrate what she dealt with as one of the few women at Harvard. My idea is to push Griswold's explanation to the footnote. It's relevant, but to me it's not nearly as relevant as Ginsburg's experience. I'm happy to discuss this further. Knope7 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
My issue with relegating the Griswold perspective to the footnotes is that the footnotes are not commonly read. Wikipedia is a place to access information and is a place for everyone. I do believe it is slightly unfair to frame it with no context. It reads in such a way that the statement made by Griswold is seemingly made in order to show his disdain or disapproval of the admittance of women to Harvard Law School. It is widely agreed that this was not his aim, and he was aiming to defend their admittance to the school, so needed direct evidence from the female members about why they wanted to study law and what they would gain. It is unfair to Griswold to leave such a statement in the article without context- and I do make the argument that a footnote is not sufficient in mitigation, nor does it add any context. I understand the submission that the experience at the time of the comment is wholly important, and it should definitely be included, but the understanding now is that Griswold was not making the comment with any malicious intent, but in fact the opposite. It is my belief that the article as of now, and specifically that part, is misleading. If one were to ask the average person reading the page whether they thought the comment was made in order to express a negative opinion on the admittance of women to Harvard, I wholeheartedly believe that every single person would believe it was.
- @ElsevierAnatomy:, I don't think your response actually deals with the point I raised: Ginsburg's perception is what matters. She has told the story to illustrate how difficult it was to be one of the few female law students and how female law students needed to prove they belonged there. Again, Griswold's intention does not change the way the comment was perceived or the effect that it had on its audience. His attempts to provide an explanation later are a digression and that's why I think it is more appropriate for the footnote, if it is to be included at all. To further drive home that this story is not about Griswold, I'll point out that he is not mentioned by name. Only his title is mentioned. This is something that has been discussed on the article talk page before. Knope7 (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The statement "Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?" would appear to a the average person to mean “I believe that women are less entitled to a place at Harvard Law than men. I think that the statement and how it has been framed by you is misleading. It is right to make reference to feelings of discomfort at the time, as these feelings are very important and relevant to the experience of women during that period, but it is wrong to leave the quote without any context, leading it to read as though the Dean was devaluing their admittance. He was not doing that and RBG has made it clear that he was misunderstood. If RBG made it clear that his intentions were not to do so, it is important that they are included in the main text. You say that the story is not about Griswold, as he is not mentioned my name. That is surely a wholly meaningless statement. The mentioning of the Dean of Harvard Law and the inclusion of a comment like that, makes this about a figure of authority and the establishment being an oppressor of women and their rights and equality within education. Whilst the women were uncomfortable due to the comment, it wasn’t necessarily because they thought he was uncomfortable with them being admitted, it was possible that it was because whilst he essentially wasn’t against their admittance, they felt it wasn’t their place to make statements of ambition. This is due to their fear at the time, not his comment. I think that if we can’t come to a compromise on this, which would include the addition of some context on the main page, then it will have to be the talk page and then dispute resolution/ third opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierAnatomy (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add that your footnote “The Dean later claimed that he was trying to learn student’s stories” seems to show your opinion on this. RBG herself believed that people have misunderstood his comment. It is not as thought Griswold has claimed it and the women disagree. The women agree that his comment was innocent, and was posed not to show disdain, but to gain real insight. It is completely understandable that the women felt uncomfortable with the comment, but it was not because they thought that the comment was the Dean telling them that they should not be at Harvard Law, but because they did not know how to reply. Comments expressing ambition made by women were still not acceptable, which is absolutely relevant, but the comment itself was not malicious, and your quotation and wording of it is misleading as it is blatant in its attempt to make it appear so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierAnatomy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ElsevierAnatomy: First assume good faith. You are assigning motives to me, and I am asking you kindly not to do that. I don't agree that including Griswold's words is misleading and I think you are fighting against context that is not currently in the article. In my opinion, the article is written fairly. It uses Griswold's words, which have been often published and are not in dispute, but does not call him out by name or make any aspersions against him. Putting an explanation in the footnote is my suggestion for a compromise. Please feel free to start yet another discussion about this on the article talk page if you would like to try and change the consensus. 03:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I do assume good faith. “Yet another” suggests irritation or impatience on your part. The direct quotes mention Griswold but they also mention the context and they mention that his comments were not made maliciously. “I don’t agree that including Griswold’s words is misleading”. Complete straw man argument there, as I told you that including his words isn’t inherently misleading. Including his words without the context that they were made in and making them mean something different, is misleading. I, myself am growing tired of this discussion now as you seem to be looking for a way out of the discussion. It’s very frustrating, example being the straw man argument above, to see my argument being discarded. When looking on the RBG talk page, I only see those supporting my argument within the education subsection.
Three- Revert- Rule
Hi. I’d just like to forewarn you that any further edits on RBG page that revert my edit will be classed as edit warring and will be editing in bad faith according to Wikipedia policies. You have reverted my edit there times now, so no more reverts are allowed under the policy. Any more will likely lead to a block or another sanction. Please seek further advice from another editor or talk page to implement your edit. ElsevierAnatomy (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- You have removed properly sourced information without a justification or consensus. The conent should remain in the article pending any discussion on the article talk page. It was incorrect for you to undo my edit and you did tht twice. Please start a discussion on the artcile talk page as I have asked yoo to do multiple times and refrain from making further inaccurate statements about me and my editing. Knope7 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Try reading the rule and you’ll see that only only more than 3 reverts is classed as definitely breaking the rule.
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
- News and notes: An Action Packed April
- In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?
- Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
- Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art
- Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde
- Technology report: A new special page, and other news
- Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns
- News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?
- Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
- From the archives: Portals revisited
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jeannette Rankin has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Removing my revision on the Janet Reno page
Your argument for removing my edit was "The article covers this later on. The documents were turned over and the full House did not cite her for contempt. It's significant enough for the article but unnecessary for the lead." However, this is the issue that's covered at too small of a length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly is a topic that defines her life and career. The citations for this are included in my original edit. At the very least, it's absurd that the AG only ONE sentence in her entire page mentioning her contempt citation. It should be included in the lead and I would ask that you consider my opinion. Perhaps we can agree on her lead including this plus more information on her career, which can be discussed in the talk page section. Thanks! Kozak4512 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- The contempt vote is not the issue that defines her life and career. That assertion that this defines her is not believable nor supported by reliable sources. I have responded in greater length on the talk page. Knope7 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I left several edit summaries. Note this is a WP:BLP and as such the material should be removed pending a consensus. Knope7 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I’m obviously aware she’s living. Do you mind pointing me to where the summaries are? VicWOODHULL (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Check the article edit history. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before wading into such contentious territory. As I indicated on the article talk page, your attempt to add criticism may force us to also include Jemison's own words and views. You maybe calling more attention to the content you find objectionable. Knope7 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Odd statement coming from feminist. You suggest I familiarize myself with how Wikipedia works before I can submit a relevant and non-biased edit? Or is that more of an elitist position... either way, she wouldn’t have been invited to the commencement had her views been known. It’s important that others know. It’s verifiable and true. At this point it’s a little unclear what your real issue with the edit is. VicWOODHULL (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't include abortion views for most people unless it is important to their public life. So far, you have failed to establish anything as a fact let alone establish why it is significant enough for an encyclopedia. There are a lot of places on the internet to voice your criticism of her speech and to let others know what you think of her speech. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You are attempting to add material that pushes a point of view without reliable sources, does not include at the BLP subject's own perspective or defense, and not establishing that this material is significant enough to include. The material you have proposed violates several well-established Wikipedia policies. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. If you would like to further that mission, you are more than welcome but you need to follow established policies. Knope7 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
June events with WIR
Hi there, Knope7. I was a bit taken aback by your summary deletion of Nancy Pelosi on WP:Women in Green. I think that at the very least, before deleting it, you could have discussed it with me on my talk page or raised your concerns on the WiG talk page. I take good note of your comments on the assessment here but your response there appeared to indicate that you did not in fact object to the GA assessment. In my opinion, when several editors get together to make significant improvements to an article, they should be given credit for their efforts. Deletion is tantamount to accusing them of insufficient scrutiny. I think it might be interesting to have reactions from Alanna the Brave and SusunW who are among the more active members of the WiG project. Up to now, in line with Dr. Blofeld's original intentions, I have been adding all deserving GA women's biographies to the achievements. If this is going to cause problems, maybe we should just stick to those WiR participants have worked on? (cc. StudiesWorld)--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting a discussion. Since a number of others have been pinged, this might be better suited for the project talk page rather than my talk page. I'm not aware of a firm policy on what to include as a recent success so I didn't see the harm in removing the article, particularly since as far as I could tell I was tbe only project member involved in the review in any capacity. From my perspective, it was a drive by nomination for an article I had long thought needed major work. I don't think I'm in a position to de-list but that doesn't mean I have no qualms about the article. It's more about being fair to the good faith reviewer and the process. My thinking in removing the article is the article was not promoted as part of out iniative and it's not a great example of the kind of effort typically put in to our nominations. IMO, if we want to endorse drive by nominatioms, we should do so carefully. Knope7 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- Essay: Paid editing
DYK for Ruth Hanna McCormick
Quarter Million Award
|The Quarter Million Award|
|For your contributions to bring Mae Jemison (estimated annual readership: 400,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)|
Collaboration on Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin
Hey Knope7 -- I see you've gotten started on Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, and I wanted to let you know I'm still up for collaborating. How could I be of most help right now? Let me know what I can do. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Alanna the Brave: Thanks for the message! I think the souring needs to be improved, both to provide support for unsorced claims and to fill in facts missing from the article all together. Hopefully I'll have time in the next week or so to start diving in myself as well. Knope7 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
July events from Women in Red!
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Regarding recent edit to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That section was not about Bush v Gore, it was about her role as a dissenter. I felt it was relevant to information about that role. I disagree that it is not significant based on the voluminous legal debates around Bush v Gore. It was significant enough that a national publication included it in its reporting years after the fact. Furthermore, I feel that it gives an important alternative viewpoint to the views expressed in the rest of the article (ie, the image of Ginsburg as a feisty fighter), which is important to the neutrality of the article. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you still think it should be left out. Schnapps17 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate discussion and I have thought about your comments. My opinion is that a lot is written about Ginsburg everyday and not every time she is mentioned in a national publication is significant. There are stories that are picked-up and run across several national publications that are not included because they passed quickly. I don't think criticism from an unnamed former law clerk mentioned in one national publication is that significant. To me the sentence added to the Ginsburg article lacked context as to what she changed and why. Criticism is fine but it does need context and where appropriate response from the subject's perspective. I'm not swayed by the fact that this anonymous opinion was published four years after the case. I'm not the arbiter of what to include in the article, but I would continue to argue that the article is stronger without this piece of anonymous criticism. Knope7 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Mae Jemison
Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeannette Rankin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlastairJHannaford -- AlastairJHannaford (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 at Women in Red
Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin
The article Jeannette Rankin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jeannette Rankin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlastairJHannaford -- AlastairJHannaford (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jeannette Rankin
The article Jeannette Rankin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jeannette Rankin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlastairJHannaford -- AlastairJHannaford (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things