User talk:MassAve74

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dustin Tingley has been accepted

Dustin Tingley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, MassAve74!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Gheus (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for sharing this resource, @Gheus. It looks like this is exactly the info I need. MassAve74 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Also, read WP:NPROF criteria before submitting more drafts on academics. Thanks! Gheus (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gheus, I have only just discovered your reply. Thank you very much. How interesting that you also recommend the WP:NPROF criteria. Another Wikipedian recently alerted me to this page. Many thanks! MassAve74 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafaela Dancygier has been accepted

Rafaela Dancygier, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! Thank you so much, @Gheus!
This has been my first accepted Wikipedia article. You made my day!
Special thanks also to @ForsythiaJo for their help, which improved the piece a LOT!
Good night, MassAve74 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joshua D. Kertzer has been accepted

Joshua D. Kertzer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amanda Murdie has been accepted

Amanda Murdie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, MassAve74, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you made a good start yesterday with four biographies, including one of a woman. We look forward to many more. You can find guidance to writing about women in our essays, perhaps starting with the Primer. If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ipigott, thank you for reaching out! [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red]] is a great initiative. It's shocking that only 20% of biographies on Wikipedia are on women. I will try and do my bit to help change this.
In fact, I have just come across a few more female academics who have been incredibly influential in their fields but who don't have Wikipedia entries yet: Jennifer Forestal (Loyola University Chicago), LaFleur Stephens-Dougan (Princeton), Leah Stokes (University of California), and Rocío Titiunik (Princeton).
I would love to write entries about them but the trouble is that there are hardly any secondary sources about them. This is a problem that came up yesterday: a Wikipedia Editor rejected a draft article about an academic because there aren’t enough secondary sources establishing their notability.
However, another Wikipedian hast just alerted me to the page Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It states: "Many scientists (...) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. (...) Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. (...) Academics meeting any one of the following conditions (...) are notable. (...) 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" (italics/bold in original).
Does that mean that we actually don't necessarily need secondary sources but can rely on the existence of prestigious awards to justify Wikipedia entries about academics? That would make things a lot easier. I think all the female scholars listed above received prestigious prizes for their work. I would be very grateful for any advice that you may have! MassAve74 (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I think it would be difficult to develop biographies on the basis of awards alone, unless the award ceremonies and write-ups contain extensive biographical information. Furthermore, reviewers may question the significance of academic awards unless they are specifically considered to be valid for sourcing purposes. In general, for living people we look for at least three independent secondary sources. You will find further information in the Primer mentioned above and in the other essays. Before I embark on a biography, I always make sure I first have three reliable sources which provide pertinent information. If you are in any doubt about a new draft, let me take a look at it and I might be able to help you out.--Ipigott (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Jennifer Froestal, you could begin by drawing on this profile and then include some of the assessments of her books. You can turn these up by searching Google for "jennifer forestal critical reviews". Let's see how it goes.--Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply! I really appreciate that you got back to me so quickly. That all makes sense. I will try and proceed as you suggest. All best, MassAve74 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MassAve74 I'd encourage you to write about full professors only or academics that have written multiple books (and received multiple critial reviews). Multiple critical reviews of multiple books is a requirement to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Jennifer Forestal is an assistant professor, so IMO she likely fails WP:NPROF - you can prove her notability via WP:GNG route or WP:NAUTHOR as mentioned earlier. Gheus (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice, @Gheus! Great idea to search for critical reviews. I will also look out for additional independent sources, such as biographical profiles. Having said that, some assistant professors have already made a profound impact on their fields. It is usually a scholar's first book that makes the biggest contribution, because they often don't have time to write an equally important second book. MassAve74 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2025

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336


Online events:

Announcements (Events facilitated by others):

Tip of the month:

  • When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT.
    Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited,
    it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name.

Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)

  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women)
  • 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicola Pratt has been accepted

Nicola Pratt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, @Theroadislong!
Warm wishes and all the best, MassAve74 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2025

Women in Red | May 2025, Vol 11, Issue 5, Nos. 326, 327, 337, 338


Online events:

Announcements (events facilitated by others):

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period!
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women)
  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women
    are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on the Women in Red talk page.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

May 2025

Information icon Hi MassAve74! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kj cheetham, thank you for explaining this so carefully. I really appreciate that you also included the link to the Wikipedia definition of "minor edit". This makes me realize that there is still a lot of things I don't know about Wikipedia and how it works. It's a continuous - but also exciting! - learning experience. Thanks again and all the best, MassAve74 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MassAve74 I've been editing on Wikipedia for a good few years, and I'm definitely still learning too. :-) Give me a shout if ever anything I can do to assist though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Another thing that should be encouraged is use of edit summaries, as per WP:ES. In any case, hope you had a good weekend! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kj cheetham, many thanks for taking a look at the entry on Anca Parvulescu! I very much appreciate your feedback. I have just established a link from another Wikipedia article to de-orphanize the piece.
Thank you also for explaining about the need to provide edit summaries. I will do this from now on. Take care, MassAve74 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Kj cheetham, can I ask you a question: I have added two more categories for Anca Parvulescu, making it a total of 5. Is there an ideal number of categories that I should aim for? MassAve74 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MassAve74 There isn't really an ideal number from my point of view. The article originally only had categories to say was a living person and what universities she was associated with, rather than more defining characteristics, like what they are notable for. Now it includes categories making it clear she's an academic/scholar, which is an improvement. Personally, I'd still be inclined to add some kind of gender intersection one, maybe Category:Women scholars and academics?? WP:PEOPLECAT has some further guidance for interest. Hope this helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kj cheetham, thank you so much for your advice! Excellent idea to include the category "women academics." I have just inserted this. Thanks also for the reference to WP:PEOPLECAT. I hadn't been aware of this. All best MassAve74 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, just to add, ideally would be something more specific than just "women academics", if an appropriate category exists. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June 2025

Women in Red | June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340


Online events:

Announcements:

  • Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea,
    but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red.
    We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania.
    We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider?
    Can you suggest a DYK style hook?
    If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page.
  • The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July, 2025

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources.
    Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research
    the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red July 2025

Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343


Online events:

Announcements:

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
  • 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)

Tip of the month:

  • A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements,
    but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red August 2025

Women in Red | August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red September 2025

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349
Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes.


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.

Progress ("moving the needle"):

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352
Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.

Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:

  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
  • 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red - November 2025

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354

Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.

Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made
    is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each
    biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if
    you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
  • 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
  • 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - December 2025

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357

Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.

Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red - January 2026

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red February 2026

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

  • Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia
    articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet.

Tip of the month:

  • Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red - March 2026

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366


Online events:

Announcements from other communities:

Tip of the month:

  • Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays,
    perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MassAve74