User talk:RebeccaGreen

Hello, RebeccaGreen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

AfC notification: Draft:Gwen Kelly has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gwen Kelly. Thanks! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gwen Kelly has been accepted

Gwen Kelly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dress-up, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cowboys and Indians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elsie Burrell has been accepted

Elsie Burrell, 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hilarie Lindsay has been accepted

Hilarie Lindsay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

JC7V-talk 21:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Patricia Easterbrook Roberts has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Patricia Easterbrook Roberts. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Frank Corley

On this well-intentioned suggestion of yours: I shall be surprised if the Frank Corley article is deleted. And I suppose that some editor somewhere might take saving a disputed article to one's own sandbox as a concession of defeat. (Also, it may not be a good idea to keep in one's sandbox a draft for an article on a subject whose notability isn't already clear.)

The author of an article at AfD might be wise to save their draft to a text file on their hard drive. But advice to do so really isn't necessary, because it's easy to ask an admin (perhaps the one who deleted the article after an AfD) to restore the article to a sandbox. (Unless, of course, the article was a copyright violation, was potentially libelous, etc etc -- but this article isn't problematic in any of these ways.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad to know that an admin can easily restore a deleted article. I am surprised, though, that you say that keeping a draft in one's sandbox when the subject's notability isn't already clear may not be a good idea. I thought that the sandbox was intended for drafting articles, and how is the subject's notability to be agreed by editors until after it has been submitted as a draft for approval? The writer of the article presumably believes that the subject is notable, and may even have attempted to establish that with information and references that they hope conform to Wikipedia guidelines about notability. But having seen proposed AfD about subjects which clearly meet Wikipedia's guidelines (eg presumed notability given certain facts or achievements) - I could not presume that a subject whose notability I think I've clearly established is also considered notable by reviewers and editors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If this article were deleted, you'd certainly have the right to continue editing it in your sandbox. Yes, you could edit it there if you preferred. Or anyone could, in their own sandbox. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patricia Easterbrook Roberts has been accepted

Patricia Easterbrook Roberts, 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gisella Loeffler has been accepted

Gisella Loeffler, 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joan Craven (2) has been accepted

Joan Craven (2), 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

To Rebecca, thank you for all your articles and contributions, and information on Maggie Calloway, silent film star, did you find anything on Helen Rowland, IMDb states she passed away in 1978, although this is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.39.16 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Midwest Herald. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The article was nominated for PROD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Don't post talk in the article, post it in the associated talk page. TJRC (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RebeccaGreen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Teppo Hauta-aho

You removed the proposed deletion template on Teppo Hauta-aho and gave as a reason in your edit summary "The Open Music Library shows 23 articles about Teppo Hauta-Aho, so there are plenty of sources to draw on". I try to avoid using sources that force readers to register with a web site if they want to check a citation. Sources ought to be more easily accessible. Do you know of any other sources for this article?"
Vmavanti (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply I have not looked. WP:SOURCEACCESS states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Deletion cannot be uncontroversial when there are sources available in conformity with WP:GNG, and may well be other sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I access the sources at Open Music Library? I created an account. But when I click on an article I'm taken to Proquest. Is that a paid site? Do I need an account there, too? It's good that you quoted the rules to me. But my main concern is the reader. Readers don't want to jump through hoops. The citations ought to be fairly accessible, otherwise there is no point in having them. Do you have much experience with the Open Music Library and ProQuest? Was your experience through a school or library or neither? How thoroughly have you looked at the articles in the list of sources to know whether they are reliable? I have to see more than a list of titles. I take proposing deletion seriously and I take the removal of the template seriously, as I'm sure you do, too. I have the readers in mind first. So I want to examine these articles one at a time to see how much usable content they have. Thanks for the reply and help.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vmavanti, I suggest you take the article to AfD if you want to discuss whether sources should be available online, and whether they are reliable and independent. There is also information in books available through Google books, and he's in Oxford Music Online, and other books about Finnish composers. My point is that this is not an uncontroversial PROD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

the Simona Sharoni article whose deletion you just blocked

how do you plan to heal the self promotion, the lack of subject's notability, and the massive POV issue created by the fact that Sharoni wrote the first version of her own full article herself and has since been one of its most active editors?

The proposal wasn't by me, but given the complicated mechanics of the AfD process I appreciated it. Don't you think you owe us at least a shred of substantial argument about your veto? I have been asking on the talk page about notability for a month now, without any response whatsoever yet. Wefa (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your vote

Please review the policy NOTNEWS and reconsider your vote here. Coverage in international news sources in today’s world is not unusual and is typical of a regular news cycle. You have a right to keep your vote as is; I am just offering more information to better understand notability in this situation. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Hilarie Lindsay) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hilarie Lindsay.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Great work!

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

An apology, and a request

Hey, sorry if I'm coming across as a bit gruff at the AFD. I don't mean to imply you are a "bad editor" or anything (that's what I was getting at with the "you're not at fault" bit); the problem is that AFD is often used to defend the kind of things Wikipedia used to be known for back in the mid-00s (articles that are rudimentary and frequently wrong, to paraphrase/quote -- I don't remember his exact words -- Paul Freedman), because when such pages come up there's inevitably a number of "Notable! Keep!" !votes, and it's a pain attempting to deal with them. But I don't know you, so I feel really uncomfortable with the idea that you might think I thought you were such an editor. So here I am.

Anyway: I would like to request that you refrain from making comments like this, since, similarly to how I don't know you, you don't know me well enough to say what some editors might read that comment to mean (that I auto-!vote "delete" in articles on topics I might believe to be notable but have no interest in improving myself). Generally it's not the responsibility of editors !voting on an AFD to sink however many hours it would take into attempting to improve an article before giving up and deciding it can't be helped, and saying "You haven't helped the article" just comes across as needlessly combative. The only reason I said that to you was because I was specifically asked to comment on whether I thought you had improved the article enough to merit changing my !vote, but I never asked you to change your !vote because of some edit I might have made to the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, and your apology. I was not the one who asked you to comment on what I had done, and I did not ask you to change your vote, either. As I'm sure you gathered, I did not like the remark you made ("it's never a good sign ...."), but I should have walked away at that point. I have since decided not to take any further part in that AfD or any work on that article, and I will certainly attempt to refrain from making any such comments in future. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Good work

		A glass of Thandai for you
		Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Here is something for your good work with some of the Biography AfDs, your well reasoned comments with evidence. Cheers Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

A beer for you!

Nice job sourcing Elizabeth O. Hiller E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For WP:HEYMANN upgrades and dignity under fire during this inexplicable series of AfD nominations of notable early 20th century writers and artists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For unearthing great references on the AfD for Legendary Heroes of Africa. Strong work. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

re: PROD removal

I fully support WP:BITE and drafting, but that doesn't change my prodding logic. If the reviewing admin (or you) feel that something can be draftified instead of being deleted, be bold and move it. If you just remove the prod due to WP:BITE, that I feel is a bit of an abuse of BITE, since the next step is now a potential waste of community's time with a full AfD. PS. My first article on Wikipedia, ~15 year ago, was deleted, and that was made me stick around :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am fairly new myself, and I was not aware that I could move an article to a draft. I will look up how to do it. Is there a reason why it cannot be done now, without going to AfD? Or could it be moved to a draft if the creator of the article agreed? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	thank you! Олег Черкасский (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

How does a brand new user figure out AfD before doing anything else?

This is puzzling. valereee (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a born deletionist? ;-) Seriously, though, I think there are big differences between what generalists and specialists see as notable. The recent earthquake deletions spring to mind, being based on the Wikiproject Earthquakes not documenting earthquakes that don't fit a set of criteria they have determined (and apply somewhat subjectively, to my mind), even though they are not policy - and then consider that "not documenting" actually means deleting a lot of articles that others consider meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

lol it appears to be professional jealousy valereee (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi RebeccaGreen! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You are my idol; You always active on AFD for women; So proud for your work!!! I'm from Myanmar. This barnstar for you <3 Mmcele (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A Well-Deserved Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Having just closed a third AfD as "Keep per WP:HEY with thanks to RebeccaGreen" I realised you were most definitely due for a barnstar! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, RebeccaGreen, and welcome to Women in Red. From the two informative biographies you have already contributed, it looks as if you will be a useful member our project. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/104|Women of War and Peace]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105|Play!]] January geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/106|Caucasus]] New, year-long initiative: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] Continuing global initiative: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman2019]] Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)

--Ipigott (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angeles Arrien has been accepted

Angeles Arrien, 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Elizabeth Backhouse) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Elizabeth Backhouse.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page could use an image and an infobox. Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Humber the Hun

The article Humber the Hun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obscure unhistorical character.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Lila Ammons

Thanks for adding some sources to this article. It's customary to give reasons when removing a PROD (even more so when it's been seconded). Could you state which WP:MUSICBIO criterion/criteria you think she meets, and how? The only possibility I see is #1, but there's almost nothing on her that's not very local, promotional, probably self-penned, or her commenting about her notable family members (i.e. not actually about her), even after the sources you've added. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• I usually leave a reason when removing a PROD, but in this case, realised that the 7 days had expired, so removed it immediately. You say the JazzPolice 2016 source is not reliable because the same text appeared on a TicketWeb listing. The event that listing was for was AFTER the JazzPolice piece, and JazzPolice had also reviewed her several years before. Promotional texts like ads and ticket sale websites often copy text from independent reviews. I think at the very least this should go to AfD - she may or may not meet WP:MUSICBIO, but she may meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. From some of the JazzPolice wording, I'm not convinced that was genuinely independent coverage, despite there being an author's name on the piece... I used to use JazzPolice, but it's gone downhill & I don't see any info about itself online to investigate whether it counts as a WP:RS. Anyway, are you likely to add anything else to the article? I don't want to go down AfD unless I really believe there's not enough out there to warrant keeping it. EddieHugh (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have found a couple of other references, one from Musical America in 1987, about an opera she was in (some verification of that section), and one saying she teaches at West Bank School of Music in Minneapolis (additional bio info, not for notability). I could also add some quotes from reviews (eg La Hora del Blues "one of the most delicate melodical voices with an excellent coloful range"). RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, add what you have & that'll give me a better picture. I'm not sure how good a source La Hora del Blues is either, but it might be acceptable, without doing much for notability. Do you use proquest or similar as a search starting point? Your ability to find things seems more than standard search engine-based. EddieHugh (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi EddieHugh, sorry I didn't get to add any more until today. I have now done so, and will see what others think - You may well be right. I don't use Proquest - I do have access to various databases through the National Library of Australia (as I think you have seen), and I subscribe to the British Newspaper Archive and Newspapers.com. But I found most of the sources I added here through Google searches, using her name, the names of others she performed with or places she performed, and also using the word 'review' translated into languages like French, Spanish and German. Searching on a variety of combinations brings up different search results - and I also look further than just a few pages of results, something I sometimes see people saying in AfD nominations ("no results found in the first X number of google results"), as if that means there's nothing to be found. I wish I had access to print copies - online searches are great for sources that have been digitised or indexed, but so much is either not yet digitised, or if created digitally, has been removed or not saved when a website is upgraded .... Anyway, I have done the best I can on this article, I think, so will leave it to others to decide if she is in any way notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the sort of thing we shouldn't keep (tens/hundreds of millions of people would have an article if her coverage were enough), but yes, see what others think. Interesting on the sourcing: I don't use other languages, but do sometimes add other words to the name ('review', 'interview', titles of recordings or places, etc) too. If you haven't already, have a look at The Wikipedia Library Card Platform: you might not need any of it, but it could be useful to fill in some gaps in what you can access digitally. EddieHugh (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Expressing my awe as you contribute one outstanding WP:HEYMANN upgrade after another to poorly sourced pages on notable persons and things. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/109|Social Workers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/110|Black Women]] February geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/111|Ancient World]] Continuing initiatives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman2019]] Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AfD categorization

Hi. To categorize Articles for deletion discussions, you may find User:Enterprisey/delsort useful. feminist (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Johnnie Hines Watts Prothro (January 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CatcherStorm was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Johnnie Hines Watts Prothro and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Johnnie Hines Watts Prothro, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CatcherStorm ^talk 11:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RebeccaGreen! Having an article 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! CatcherStorm talk 11:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How Disappointing

...that after all your wonderful HEY work, you couldn't save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Green ;)

Nosebagbear (talk)

Oh, what a pity! That must have been listed before I started looking at AfDs, so I hadn't even seen it :'( My poor namesake, I wonder if she could have been saved? ;-) RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Even more disappointing, I have just found the article on Deletionpedia, and it really needed a HEY job! And I have easily found two lengthy sources just by googling - one published in 2016, one published four days after the AfD was closed :'( Maybe I'll try creating a new article sometime. Thanks for drawing it to my attention! RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Johnnie Hines Watts Prothro has been accepted

Johnnie Hines Watts Prothro, 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for correcting the many mistakes made in the list of film credits translated from the German article of Claudia Lössl! Enjoy your bubble tea! Lafayette Baguette talk 02:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gerina Dunwich

It would be good to have your thoughts on Gerina Dunwich. Seems very borderline to me.--Pontificalibus 09:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Great job, thanks for looking.--Pontificalibus 12:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I was honoured that you asked. I was a bit surprised that it closed as Keep so quickly. I removed some unnecessary content from the article - it still needs editing, but is not a priority for me. Certainly it would be good to add the reference you found to her being a "world-renowned authority on felidomancy"! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/112|Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen]] Geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/113|Francophone Women]] Continuing initiatives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman]]
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] Join the conversations on our [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red|talkpage]] Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Castaneda/reiman

Nice work on that! Thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Bondita Acharya

can be effectively weaponized to game the system is quite different from you're gaming the system. The former is mentioning a possibility that might stem from such closures; whilst the latter is a direct aspersion. ∯WBG^converse 16:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Nosebagbear submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate RebeccaGreen to be Editor of the Week for their relentless and outstanding work in rescuing articles at risk of deletion at AfD. From October 2018, RebeccaGreen has turned AfD into an avalanche of struck deletes and closes saying "Keep, per WP:HEYMANN, thanks to RebeccaGreen". Not satisfied with merely finding sources, she resolves everything from quotes, references, content, typos & wiki-links for at-risk articles and, in so doing, presents us and our readers with a retained and improved result. Just a few examples of Articles she has rescued include: Carmen L. Browne (AfD), Elizabeth O. Hiller (AfD), Jacque Batt (AfD) and Mary R. Bassett (AfD). These are living examples that, while it might be hard to improve an at-risk article, it is highly rewarding. Her attitude is kind and welcoming, no matter which side of the debate you are on. She improves the whole discussion for all involved. A Linguist, family historian, dolls house collector, researcher and someone that has been aware of women's issues in Australia since the early 1970s.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 06:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)