Archives

Archive 1

Hi there, Nnev66, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you have again become active on Wikipedia and have been improving a number of women's biographies. When you feel ready to create biographies yourself, you'll find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules. I've taken the liberty of adding the Women in Red user box to your user page. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. Trying to figure out things on my own but also want to find communities of Wikipedia's to chat with where appropriate. I hope soon to be creating a wiki page for a notable woman scientist. Nnev66 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find we are a very cooperative community. Feel free to comment on our WIR talk page where you are welcome to take part in discussions. And I'll always be ready to respond to anything you come up with on my own talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my first page via the Wikipedia Review mechanism. Not a scientist but someone I thought should have a page: Draft:Rachel Cowan. Not sure I'd go through this mechanism again as there appears to be a backlog but wanted to see what it would be like to go through the reviewer process. Hope to identify a woman scientist soon. Nnev66 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nnev66. So glad to see you contributing to the Women in Red project. I just wanted to explain why I reverted several of your recent changes to the bio about Diane Koken. I did so because your recent, good-faith edits removed several useful citations from the article with the rationale, "remove references with no information: "'M. Diane Koken,' Milton Hershey School." and "'M. Diane Koken,' Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company." Unforuntately, when you did that you removed citations that actually serve important functions. (Those shortened citations may have seemed as if they did not contain important information, but each was designed let future Wikipedia editors know that those cited paragraphs had reference sources to back up the content presented there. This is particularly important when writing and editing biographies of women for the Women in Red project because women's biographies on Wikipedia have had a history of being challenged and deleted because they "did not contain enough citations," regardless of how prominent the biographical subjects were/are. Being a relatively new editor to Wikipedia and the Women in Red project, you may not have realized this; so that's why I just wanted to reach out to you.) Also, just fyi. The types of abridged citations that you deleted actually did have valid formatting (based on longtime academic standards, as well as Wikipedia's current Manual of Style). So, I've replaced three of the citations you removed for these reasons. There's always a bit of a learning curve with Wikipedia, but I know I can safely say that your contributions are genuinely welcome. Again, thanks so much for helping with the Women in Red project! -- 47thPennVols (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. It was confusing to me but I see now. Thanks for explaining.

I find it more straightforward if a reference is used more than once on Wikipedia to use Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

• 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)
• 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

• Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
• Join the conversations on our talkpage.
• Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project.
• Follow us on social media:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X |} --Lajmmoore (talk 08:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]