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 ourTen 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 ourWIR 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 aboutDiane 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'scurrent 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 <ref name=something> and then that can be used thereafter so that multiple instances are collapsed in the References section. I just did this now. I don't feel super strongly about it if you want to revert. But it makes it easier to read the References and see how many unique ones there are.
I do understand the challenges of writing women's biographies in Wikipedia and to make sure everything is properly referenced. Apologies for not understanding you were using Ibid - I'm used to seeing this with books when referencing different page numbers.Nnev66 (talk)22:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There are so many ways of doing things on Wikipedia that it can get confusing for all of us, no matter how long we've been editing. (There are also some Wikipedians who are laser-focused on formatting citations a specific way and spend a great deal of time reformatting citations to their preferred way of doing things, but that's not my focus. Quite honestly, I'm more concerned about just making sure that the articles I work on are just so well-cited that it's nearly impossible for anyone to contest the notability of the subject or subject matter, particularly when it comes to the women I write about because of Wikipedia's problems with keeping bios posted and intact.) So, if you'd like to reformat the citations, that's fine with me. I'll just ask that, moving forward, you not remove citations in a way that leaves paragraphs uncited. I wish you many, many years of happy researching, writing and editing! -47thPennVols (talk)23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will not remove references again - appreciate you taking the time to explain to me. Yeah, I do like a certain kind of reference formatting. I’ve also created or significantly added to pages and want to do a good job with writing and referencing with reliable secondary sources. I plan to write more Wiki pages for women. You’ll also likely be seeing me around some on Philly & PA political pages… Thanks for all the work you’ve been doing!Nnev66 (talk)23:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news! WikiProject Pennsylvania can always use help from skilled editors like you (and Women in Red really can benefit from more of us creating bios of women who have been overlooked for far too long). Every time I find myself thinking, "I'm sure SHE already has a bio," I end up being shocked to find out that some historian, scientist or prominent political figure whose name was well-covered in the news still hasn't found a place on Wikipedia. On the plus side, there are plenty of opportunities for us to write about unsung heroes. -47thPennVols (talk)00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice a notable woman scientist without one and don't have time let me know and I could potentially take it on.Nnev66 (talk)01:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On7 April 2024,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleEllen Bernstein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatEllen Bernstein was called the "birthmother of Jewish environmentalism"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Ellen Bernstein. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Ellen Bernstein), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:
Describing a modern person uncritically as a 'prophet' is not neutral language.
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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Rachel Cowan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Hello,Nnev66!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Devonian Wombat (talk)12:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
References are made up of mostly obituaries. Is there anything that talks about her in-depth prior to that time?
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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Rachel Cowan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Rachel Cowan, 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.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJeff Yass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageWHYY. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
Interesting. WHYY has news articles also but hard to say if they're associated with the radio or TV link - may be used for both. I suppose I could just unlink but I'm OK with keeping it as either one would give more info about WHYY.Nnev66 (talk)18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of Conservative synagogues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMacon.
Thanks for your contributions toPennsylvania Office of the Budget. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit needs more sources to establish notability.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
If you look at all the Pennsylvania Department pages you'll see that it's similar to those. I think the bolus should be looked at as a whole and not individually.Nnev66 (talk)11:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Thank you very much for drafting such a nice little article on this interesting historical scientist! I accepted it and moved it to mainspace just now.Felix QW (talk)15:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Felix QW! I keep my eye on women scientist draft articles and ended up going down a wiki hole on this one. I see in the past ten years or so more books are coming out about scientists in this time period so hopefully someone else can expand if they find additional sources.Nnev66 (talk)15:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be interested in improving it further, I would recommend extending thelead section so that it adequately summarises the content. Then it would satisfy all the requirements of a B-class article and would be well on the way to be agood article. One could also consider suggesting it forWP:Did You Know, as her life is indeed rather remarkable. I'd be happy to help with either!Felix QW (talk)15:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like to improve/extend the lede but don't fully understand who she was and what to emphasize about her life. She was clearly a German physicist with expertise in low temperature physics at the time this area was taking off. She had Communist sympathies and may have been a Communist member or stalwart but nonetheless had to flee given the environment. I can't find much about her anthropological efforts other than a mention in a Nature article by Bernal about a symposium and reading correspondence with Haldane, although clearly she was more invested in the exchange than he was. And then there are some primary sources she wrote which are not cited much although I don't know what to make of that from the time period.
Note this article is written from sources where there are a few pages, a few sentences, or even just a single sentence about the subject and the dots have to be connected, which I tried to do. This is the first article I've worked on like this. I may try to ping the IP address who started the article to see if they're willing/able to add more as I don't have the book they cite. It looks like Martin Ruhemann should also have a page. I'll keep an eye on this and when I have some time will see if I can improve it. Hopefully others who may have other sources, especially books, will add to it. Thank you for the invitation to improve the article and get it more noticed.Nnev66 (talk)19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps I could get the book from the Bavarian State Library in Munich the next time I'm there, should you not get a response from the IP. They are pretty well stocked, so if you need anything else (or any support with German language sources), I can always see what I can do.Felix QW (talk)12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, and thank you very much Nnev66 for the huge work you did on the draft, I am so glad to find it considerably extended, enhanced, and finally accepted ! I am sorry to give news so late : I am totally new to wikipedia, and submitted this draft in a rush (I am currently writing my PhD dissertation in epistemology and history of human sciences). Your discussion made me discover the Women in Red project, which is perfectly matching my intentions when submitting this draft about Barbara Ruhemann : I think I will create an account in order to contribute further and share with you some informations. I tried to collect informations about her publications in chemistry, anthropology, her translations and her activities in the Communist Party of Great Britain (mostly in relation to Nigeria and decolonisation). My problem is that her contributions in anthropology clearly lack coverage (beyond wikipedia), and as I am working on applied mathematics in anthropology from an historical and epistemological point of view, I hope to mend this one day with at least an academic paper. If I understand wikipedia's policy well, this would make me unfit to use my own results in order to extend her page, and I would leave to others the task to appreciate its relevance. Anyway, I can only confirm that wikipedia was clearly lacking informations about this outstanding scientific personnality, and that she deserves further research. Thank you again for your work ! I contact you soon to share my few findings.2A01:E0A:259:8390:B91A:276D:D187:7617 (talk)15:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @19BGP for reaching out about this page and letting me know you discovered the Women in Red project! It's great to have more people contributing who care about this. I found everything I could on the internet about Barbara Ruhemann without getting to a physical library. While it was generous for @Felix QW to offer to go to a library in Bavaria, it sounds like you may have more information that could give insight into her Communist party activities/leanings and how that may have informed her career change to anthropology. I know for women it was tough staying in the physical sciences during this time period. Not sure why you couldn't add to the wikipedia page if you were able to publish your research in a reliable secondary source. It would be OK to use the sources you gathered to enhance the page so why not an academic paper you wrote after synthesizing all of these sources? I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules and policies but from my reading there are certainly gray lines and acknowledgments that most people create pages for people are areas that they are interested in, which is a mild COI. I haveBarbara Ruhemann in my watch list so I'll know if you contribute. I'm really curious what you find out if you have the time.Nnev66 (talk)18:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's really not much useful history in the original deleted article to merge, as it literally consisted solely of a single sentence stating that he exists as a city councillor without containing even the slightest detail about him beyond that. Which, of course, is the reason why it got deleted: city councillors can obviously keep substantive and well-sourced articles that go into detail about their careers, but aren't "inherently" notable enough that we would need to keep an article that just said "he is a person who exists, the end", which is all that the original version was saying.
So obviously you're free to recreate it if you can add more substance and sourcing about him than the original version did, but there wasn't really anything valuable in the original version to work from.Bearcat (talk)15:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing that. That’s what happened the last time I asked for an AfD article to be restored to draft, ie I had to wipe the whole thing and start again. I’ll draft a new article if you don’t think it’s worth restoring the original.Nnev66 (talk)15:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This award is given in recognition to Nnev66 for collecting more than 7.0 points during theWikiProject Unreferenced articles'sNOV24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! –DreamRimmer Alt (talk)18:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics available viaHumaniki 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 theWomen in Red talk page.
Hiya, I relisted the AfD because I don't think there's a clear consensus yet, but on a personal note, I disagree with your opinionhere, and wanted to take a second to explain why. In my view, a topic is notable or it isn't, that is what AfD is supposed to decide, and draftification is almost never a preferable outcome (A possible exception is when we think a subject will become notable very shortly).
In a case like this, if we send the article to draftspace, without drawing a verdict on notability, we are doing the page author a dis-service. If the topic is notable, it shouldn't go to draft. If it isn't, no amount of their editing it will overcome that hurdle, and trying to will be an exercise in futility, probably leaving the editor with a bad taste in their mouth about editing. It's not fair to give them false hope, in my opinion. Someone's got to bite the bullet and determine notability, what does waiting help with?
Thanks for your note. I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, i.e. a subject is either notable or isn't and let's use AfD to determine that and not waste time and give false hope with Draftification. It's just that when there are so many sources put forward for a subject, a few of them may actually have enough coverage to clear BASIC, but I get overwhelmed and glaze over after reading one article after another with routine coverage. Draftication gives the less experienced editor who wants to Keep the page a chance to clear out the chafe and bring forward an article with the best sources. Ideally, they'd have put forward the best ones at AfD, but they may not understand what is being sought. I know it's taken me a while to understand consensus around notability policy and I still think I'm only 2/3 of the way there. Best case scenario, if there are not enough sources a newish editor is able to learn this on their own when the process is slowed down.Nnev66 (talk)18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is in a perfect world draftification might help how you describe, but as things are the user is not likely to receive helpful guidance from the AfC project, just rejections with relatively little explanation behind them. It would be better for them to get the feedback about notability during the AfD, instead. But I get where you are coming from, thanks for elaborating.Eddie891TalkWork11:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together ourlist of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate10 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 thetalk page.
Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regardingnotability andreliable 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.
I'm interested in creating articles about other Standing Together activists but don't have much experience with Wikipedia. Might you be interested in helping?Yonshar (talk)08:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rula Daood would likely meetWP:GNG. I’d be willing to help. I have a couple of other articles I want to write before I’d have time to start a new one from scratch, but if you start a draft article I’d be happy to help.Nnev66 (talk)01:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics available viaHumaniki 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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedSulaiman Khatib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDisturbing the Peace.
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.
You have recently edited a page related totheArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged in, have500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
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)
Anica Kovačič, 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 asC-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
@Liz I'd had adiscussion with Toadspike to move the redirect to Draft, then tried to do it myself and botched the move, which is why this must have happened. Next time I'll ask an administrator for help. Sadly, I was unsuccessful in persuading the closer to re-openthe AfD discussion but other participants from the original discussionweighed in, and there was overall consensus toDraftify and try again.Nnev66 (talk)01:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
