Sbbarker19

Thanks Sbbarker19 for the message. I was just noticing the excellent work that you did on the page to organize the HIV/AIDS reviews. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. I have also been plugging away at a few different categories. Where would you like to put the women's health Cochrane Reviews? In a subheading (like you did with HIV/AIDS), or on a separate page? Thanks again for the message! JenOttawa (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

- JenOttawa thank you! It may be better for me to post them to a different location so I can link specific wikiprojects to them, but I don't mind also organizing that page, either! Sbbarker19 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. For me, it is a little easier keeping them on the same project page (and not having duplicates). Otherwise, we will have to update them in two places. Do you mind doing the same as you did for HIV/AIDS? I have been plugging away at this as well on a few different topics. I am open to suggestions and I am excited about this collaborative effort! Thanks again, JenOttawa (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes complete sense. I will get on that right away. I'll keep them on the same page. Thanks so much JenOttawa

Category:Kentucky women by occupation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 20:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw you created a number of talkpages the other day for articles that don't exist. These generally get deleted unless there's an article to go along with them. If you're planning on expanding the articles eventually, you can make them as drafts in your userspace (g.g., USer:Sbbarker19/Belinda Mason beforehand. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New:Indigenous womenWomen of marginalized populationsWomen writersGeofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing:#1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Great work on the additional info and sources at Cancer in cats. However, I had to patch up a lot of that [1] because it wasn't compliant with our WP:Manual of Style. It's a long set of documents, but it's good to start getting familiar with it. I did most of the cleanup one bit at a time, so if you start here and keep clicking "Next edit →", you'll see the reasons for each tweak in the edit summaries. The most common issue was doing things like [[Foo|foos]]. The correct markup is [[foo]]s (or, at the beginning of a sentence, [[Foo]]s).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Hey, thanks the heads up and advice :) I used the visual editor to add the wikilinks! I didn't know it messes up the style. Now I know B) Sbbarker19 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Argh! That damned VE. I thought they would have fixed it by now. Well, that explains a lot. Honestly, this wiki is very difficult to edit with VE, because our markup is so complex (and we have a barge full o' rules and regs). It would probably work pretty well at a social/fandom wiki over at Wikia or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well {{ping}SMcCandlish}}, looks like its time for me to start source editing again. It's been a minute since I've practiced 😜. I really like visual editing for longer bits of text and quick edits like links. Hopefully it gets fixed soon.

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, I am working with Wikimedia’s Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews.We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,Thank you again for all your help sorting the reviews on the Cochrane project page. I just spent a couple of hours trying to continue to clean up the page. I added headings/subheadings to align the organization with how Cochrane organizes their Review Groups: https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-global-community/review-group-networks. I have quite a few holes (cardiac, stroke is only half done, health policy has not been done, anxiety, plus many many more). If you are interested in puttering at this, I would greatly appreciate it! I too will continue to "putter" :). I removed the large list of "unsorted reviews" and put them on their own page. The 3000+ list was getting a little overwhelming to scroll through in addition to all the sorted ones. As always, I am open to feedback and suggestions!!
https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Cochrane/Cochrane_Review_List
Thank you again,

Jenny

JenOttawa (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@JenOttawa:Hey! Of course I'll fiddle with it more. By the way, I finished the stroke organization but there is a conflict edit. I don't want to publish over you and mess stuff up, so I will leave whatI sorted here and afterwards we can figure out if it still serves a purpose! :)

Sorry about the edit conflict. I am all done now! It is kind of an addictive activity. I finished the CF. Would you mind also removing the reviews from the "unsorted list" when you add them to categories? This way we can slowly work through the unsorted list. Don't go back and re-do all your work though! I did it just now in two windows (copy and pasting) and then saved both edits and it worked very well. Thanks again so much!!! I will add your reviews now and then definitely done for the evening. Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sbbarker19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 196.53.0.0/16.Sbbarker19 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That IP address range belongs to LogicWeb and does indeed run proxies and VPN's. You'll need to disable those if you wish to edit here. Yamla (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: hey, I am unsure hat "those" is referring to or how to disable them. May I have some more information, please? Sbbarker19 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You will need to stop using LogicWeb as a proxy. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: I'm sorry.. I'm a bit clueless about this. I don't know what Logic web is or how to stop using it. Sbbarker19 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to contact your tech support then, I'm afraid. We can't help you with that. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Ghana library stubs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Likewise Category:Fayette County, Kentucky Registered Historic Place stubs. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

There were some strange invisible characters on some of the stub templates and categories that you created, which were preventing the master templates from displaying properly. I checked by pasting your text into MS Word, and the problem characters were non-breaking spaces.

If you draft templates on a word-processor, paste them into Wikipedia and notice that they don't display normally, try manually editing out all the spaces and retyping them with normal spaces, as I did e.g. here.

For info, I also noticed a bot edit [2] which recorded that it was replacing left-to-right marks. I think that's a separate problem, not related to a word-processor, but from copying category names in Wikipedia and pasting them – I have had this problem myself in the past. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/ Charles Philipon at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sbbarker19, just to let you know that the nomination template is being put up for speedy deletion. The article was not expanded fivefold when you nominated it, and wouldn't have been eligible for that reason, and the issues raised by the template at the top of the article would have needed to be addressed even if it had been expanded sufficiently. I hope you'll give DYK another try in the future, but articles must have been expanded by five times within the past seven days in order to be eligible (or be new or newly approved GAs), which can be difficult to achieve on preexisting articles that have some size. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sbbarker19. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky Women".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Alejandrina Ávila Ortiz.

A New Page Patroller Curb Safe Charmer just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

In reviewing this new article I have looked at the references you've provided and also looked at Google Scholar and searched for other sources. It does not appear to me that they meet the WP:NPROF test. I have not nominated for deletion at this point, to give you the opportunity to improve the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alejandrina Ávila Ortiz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandrina Ávila Ortiz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I like your organizational edits to Zoia Horn's work, but the intro to Activism section ends with a broken quote. Unfortunately, I don't have her bio on hand so I can't finish it. Could you grab the bio and finish the quote/citation? Thanks! Ruthbrarian (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! Yes, I can finish it. I'll swing by the library and grab it as soon as I can :) Sbbarker19 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Vera Lúcia de Miranda Guarda.

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

Thank you for your new article onVera Lúcia de Miranda Guarda.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Kentucky women basketball players, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TM 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you created a new stub category/template for {{1990s-American-country-song-stub}}. New stub proposals should go through the stub sorting process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Also, since I would think most country songs with articles are by American artists, I wonder if all the American songs were moved from Category:1990s country song stubs to Category:1990s American country song stubs, how many articles would still be left? What do you think of following the precedent of what was done with {{1980s-country-song-stub}} in 2016 in this proposal which subdivided that by year (e.g. {{1981-country-song-stub}}, {{1989-country-song-stub}}, etc.). Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: sorry! thats perfect; i was trying to help clean it up. that sounds much more efficient :) Sbbarker19 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2019—Issue 002

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Newly recognized content

Cretoxyrhina by Macrophyseter Bramble Cay melomys by The lorax/Vanamonde93, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Chimpanzee by LittleJerry/Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Tim riley Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Enwebb Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Gog the Mild Megabat by Enwebb, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated FAs

Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack

Fundamental changes being discussed at WikiProject Biology

On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.

Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs

Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.

1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?

• Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
• FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.

2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?

• JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
• FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.

3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?

• JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
• FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.

4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?

• FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
• JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.

5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?

• FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
• JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
  • Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.

6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?

• FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
• JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.

Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Marine life continues to dominate ToL DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sbbarker19,

Thanks for creating AaaI! I edit here too, under the username Winged Blades of Godric and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Planning to send it for deletion; absent other high quality sources than the one mentioning it's discovery (<https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/56/2/161/531730>).

There are thousands (~3500, IIRC) of type II restriction endonucleases with mostly scanty and trivial sourcing and there is zero point in duplicating REBASE.

Will be glad to hear of your opinion:-)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBG^converse 08:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sbbarker19,

Thanks for creating Temnothorax lictensteini! I edit here too, under the username Winged Blades of Godric and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

It's better to cite the original source rather than the ResearchGate pieces. Both have some dubious copyright practices and IIRC, there was some discussion that discouraged (but not prohibited) usage of these links.FWIW, just copying the mentioned DOI into the Visual Editor Cite, automatically generates the reference:-)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBG^converse 08:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sbbarker19,

Thanks for creating The Demons of Eden! I edit here too, under the username Winged Blades of Godric and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The book is the product of Cacho's investigation ...... Cacho reveals the names of those .... and offers an examination of ..... is adspeak. We need to write in a more neutral and objective manner.

On a more important note, WP:NBOOK seeks at-least 2 literary reviews of the work, excluding contextual mentions over news-reports et al.

I have added a review and need to (further) search for other reviews but absent any success, might merge the article to Lydia Cacho per WP:NOPAGE.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBG^converse 08:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)@Winged Blades of Godric:} Hi, it's nice to meet you. I am still working on translating the Spanish article. The english article is very new, not even two weeks, and my Spanish is not great so it will take more time to grow it. I would appreciate it if you could hold off merging until I have time to develop it further. Thank you for the recommendations and attention to my contributions. Sbbarker19 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Histamine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permeability (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) 20:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019—Issue 003

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Newly recognized content

Masked booby by Casliber and Aa77zz, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Rook (bird) by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn Vernonopterus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus Campylocephalus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus Unionopterus by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Ashorocetus Big Cat, Little Cat by Barkeep49, reviewed by J Milburn Félicette by Kees08, reviewed by Nova Crystallis

Newly nominated content

Masked booby by Casliber Adelophthalmidae Plains zebra by LittleJerry Letter-winged kite by Casliber

Relative WikiWork

Project name	Relative WikiWork
Cats	4.79
Fisheries and fishing	4.9
Dogs	4.91
Viruses	4.91
ToL	4.94
Cetaceans	4.97
Primates	4.98
Sharks	5.04
All wikiprojects average	5.05
Dinosaurs	5.12
Equine	5.15
Bats	5.25
Mammals	5.32
Aquarium fishes	5.35
Hypericaceae	5.38
Turtles	5.4
Birds	5.46
Australian biota	5.5
Marine life	5.54
Animals	5.56
Paleontology	5.57
Rodents	5.58
Amphibians and Reptiles	5.64
Fungi	5.65
Bivalves	5.66
Plants	5.67
Algae	5.68
Arthropods	5.69
Hymenoptera	5.72
Microbiology	5.72
Cephalopods	5.74
Fishes	5.76
Ants	5.79
Gastropods	5.8
Spiders	5.86
Insects	5.9
Beetles	5.98
Lepidoptera	5.98

Spineless editors overwhelmed by stubs

Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.

Editor Spotlight: Showing love to misfit taxa

We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.

1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?

• Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.

2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?

• Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.

My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.

3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?

• Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.

4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?

• Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.

5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?

• Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.

June DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead of tagging her article, find sources instead. Tagging it is lazy. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: unfortunately, there is no way i could be able to fix every article i see (i have a lot of work to do outside of wikipedia). i am currently using the time i do have here on a specific task, assessment. but while im checking out articles, im tagging them (and adding authority control) so others who have the time and interest can quickly find them and take care of them.

its easier to find articles to fix up if they are tagged based on what they need (like from here) or just seeing the message in the header. also, doing a lot of smaller and pressure-free tasks like these can build up editing confidence in newer editors and helped me when i first started by exposing me to all kinds of different articles. so having a collection of articles that need refs, sections, grammar cleanup, etc is nice for some people.

this was a rude message to send, but assuming good faith i understand you want to improve this encyclopedia and that perhaps you didnt and maybe wont see the benefits of tagging. thats okay. i hope you have a nice day regardless. Sbbarker19 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sbbarker19, just an FYI... the scope of WikiProject Film does not cover actors or filmmakers, if you're adding project banners to biography articles can you instead add them to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers by using the appropriate parameter in the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: oops! i am so sorry. now i know :) thank you for being kind about my mistake. have a nice day! Sbbarker19 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries! :) PC78 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:TOLN

July 2019—Issue 004

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.