This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, thanks for putting in all the good effort on that article. It could use the attention. (The US same-sex marriage articles tend to be rather hectic these days, and the tribal jurisdiction tends to get the short end of the stick, particularly given the lack of media coverage.) Keep it up! --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly if you need any specific help, let me know; I don't have as much time for this at the moment as I did a while back, but helping others is a way I can multiply the effect of my time.

One thing we do have to be cautious of with your edits - something which I should already note was already a concern with that page - is that we're relying on primary sources. We're linking right to laws, and saying what they mean, when by best Wikipedia practice, we should be linking to some reliable source explaining what the law means (see [[WP:PRIMARY). We're probably better off as we have it than to have nothing at all, but if you see options for outside sources in the future, please keep that in mind.

Do be sure that you check the talk page of the article - there's a link at the top, above the title, marked Talk that will take you there. Throw your two cents in on any issues being discussed, or to raise any new issues you think should be raised about the editing of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SusunW. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are editing text and want to add a note....just as I am doing as I wrote this...I see above the space where I am typing a bar with several options: [B] [I] (some symbols) Advanced Special Options Help Cite. Click "Cite". Another row appears and there's the option Templates. Pull down the menu and make a choice, normally "news" for anything like a newspaper or a news website, otherwise "web" for an online collection like a legal code. After you choose, a popup box appears. Do the best to complete it. You'll never use all the fields. But for a news source like this:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Judge-overturns-Measure-36-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-in-Oregon-259834001.html

You'll have today's date, the date of the story, its url, title, and the work (name of publication). If the publication isn't something you'd normally italicize, like the name of a radio station, put that in the publisher box instead of in the work box. Also the authors first and last name if available. The agency field is for something like Associated Press or Reuters. You can check your work by hitting Preview at the bottom of the form, and then "parsed preview" to see what the footnote will actually look like. Good luck! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed the chart. How? At the very bottom of the chart are some mysterious letters V T E. Click...

V to View the chart

T for its Talk page

E to Edit it.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to make a couple of edits to your drafts. See the changes I made and feel free to reply here if you have any questions about what I did. The main thing is to look to see if you did any copy and pasting or close paraphrasing, as that would case a copyright violation problem (<--- read linked article) WP is quite fussy about that. The Kansas Act article read a little wonky to me (in that there may have been some close paraphrasing from source material) and so I did some copyediting to address that issue. Feel free to review further. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SusunW. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The above box is one way to "ping" people that you've replied to a message left on their talk page. I have no problem if you want to continue chatting here on your page, I will watchlist the page and stop by from time to time. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SusunW I just wanted to drop by and tell you that I have been noticing your work, and that I think it is really good. It is great that someone is working on these topics, which otherwise tend to be neglected. So thanks, and keep up the good work. Following up on your conversation with Montanabw, you are certainly also more than welcome to approach me, either by pinging me or by visiting my talkpage if you need any help, advice or encouragement. All the best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: Wow, thank you. I get that policy is boring to most people, so it often feels like I am alone out here, okay usually. ;-) But from my perspective, we can't really understand people, unless we understand what caused them to act in the ways that they did. Those things are often policy driven. Besides which, policies usually are unequally applied to minorities, which is my main interest in them. I always need help, advice and encouragement. Happy holidays to you and yours.

I may leave further article-specific messages on the talk pages of the new articles you have created that I moved into mainspace. Incidentally, if you want to create new articles that bypass the AfC process (where article drafts go to die, I swear...) You can do it one of two ways. One is to create a sandbox in your own userspace by creating a link with your Username and the name of the sandbox (i.e. User:SusunW/Sandbox) which will be a redlink until you edit the page, or just create a redlink (like Henry Roan Horse) and click on it to create an article directly on wikipedia (riskier, as there are people who are very impatient with drafting in userspace and not kind about it...  :-P ).

I have done this every which way. For example, I have several "recyclable" sandboxes where I move stuff into and out of Article space by cut and paste. (see, User:Montanabw/Sandbox_4 which currently contains totally random nothing, versus User:Montanabw/Sandbox_3 where I cut and pasted in an article I eventually want to completely rewrite..) I also have created sandboxes with the proposed article title (such as one I'm working on now, User:Montanabw/Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey) where I just use the "move" command to move the whole article into user space (thus preserving the article history) and then the blanked subpage can be deleted. If you want to look at the history of articles I created right in mainspace and watch my editing process (which isn't always pretty!), see, e.g. Blueskin (horse) or Hindgut fermentation (now that was a scintillating subject....) So if you ever want to just goof around with stuff, let me know and I can set up some things where you can practice. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I'm gonna try this ping thingy on my page and see if it works. Far be it from me to just want a "reply" button ;) I appreciate all the help, as the programming part is frustrating and cumbersome to me. Usually I just create a "new section" in my Sandbox for new article ideas. That proves to be tedious as it must then be pasted elsewhere to be submitted. (The main information in my sandbox is an analysis of a complicated legal process in Mexico and I don't want to have to keep re-evaluating what I have and have not documented.) I also keep a running word doc open that I can paste links of documentation for follow-up on various topics that I may or may not develop. Knowing that it is possible to create multiple sandboxes and don't need to keep flipping between Wikipedia and word is invaluable. Now the big question is can I actually manage to do it? :P

I don't know how you edit in wikipedia, but I started about 8 years ago and most of the complicated stuff, I just copy and paste from someone else's (good) example and change the parameters as needed,rather than clicking on links or using visual editor. I just manually insert the basic stuff as I type (in fact, when I do normal documents, I often forget to use ctrl-i for italics and instead hit two apostrophes...! ) or else I just go to someone's talk page and say, "hey, you did cool thing X, can you do that on page X for me, too?" The real key to wikipedia is gathering a small coterie of people you can collaborate with and if a few of them have the admin tools, all the better! I have something like 200 people who are watching my talk page, and so if you ever need help and I'm not necessarily around, post a message to my page with a title and/or edit summary saying something like "Help! Anyone?" and say something like "can Montanabw or anyone who watches her talk page help me with X...?" The ((helpme)) template can also sometimes get somebody to your page yo can lend a hand. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: ctrl-i, who knew? Frankly, I just type it all in too and then try to figure out the formatting. I copy a lot of the editing marks from other peoples' work, because I have no idea where one would just "know" that from. Thank you for all the tips. Every little bit helps.

Heh, as you know, real word processors use ctrl-i or Command-i for italics, while on wiki we use two apostrophes to make italics. But when I'm doing word processing, I often forget and use wiki markup instead; so it's all a matter of what you get used to. LOL! However, you may find this video and the ones with it, as well as others linked at my alt account, User:MontOther#Training to be helpful to you! Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can tag your own articles for a wikiproject. Unless I am really confident of the general state or articles in a given wikiproject, I generally am cautious in assessing my own work, (rating it a C even if I think it's a B, and so on...) so that people don't think I have a big head, but it is a great help if you do add your own wikiproject tagging. Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want the "quick and dirty" way to format all your citations, it's this little tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/fengtools/reflinks/ You may have to manually fix some of the parameters (they tend to use the domain name as the default website and sometimes don't parse all the data), but it's a good start. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My head is swimming with so much new information, but *anything* that makes the footnoting process simpler is a bonus. I do not know why it is so difficult and tedious. Next, to see if I can move Oregon and California. :P SusunW (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So long as this doesn't make it explode, if you find it helpful to "steal" formatting and ideas from other articles, here's one I helped with that is a Featured Article on a U.S. Statute: Horse Protection Act of 1970. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As for tedious, FWIW, I find footnote formatting in Microsoft Word to be enough to make MY head explode - I go, "where are the citation templates?" LOL! And did you see the tutorial on templates? here Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I watched it. It is pretty much exactly what I do, but I almost always put everything under citeweb, and use the pull down for extra stuff. BUT, the add for a listed ref always has about 10 others, why is that? Every single time I change the page number it makes a new input o.O. SusunW (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It works better to put the sources (like books) where you use a bunch of different pages into a separate "bibliography" or "sources" section, and then in the text, just do <ref>Smith, p. 77</ref> or whatever. For an example see the "footnotes" and "references" sections of Appaloosa - we used several books and a couple of long peer-reviewed journal articles there. Does that help? Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

:)SusunW (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You may also like to use Google book tool Coverts bare long Google url into ((cite book)) format with more direct links. -- Moxy (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy and Moxy: Thank you :)

For the Minnie Evans page, I suggest that when you move it into mainspace, do it with a copy and paste. There are two ways to do the title, and simple is best. One would be to use her Potawatomi name, Ke-waht-no-quah Wish-Ken-O, though if she wasn't notable under that name, I wouldn't. I would suggest using the title Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader). Then do a disambiguation at the top of the other Minnie Evans page that looks like this: ((for|the Potawatomi leader|Minnie Evans (Potawatomi))) Which will render as For the Potawatomi leader, see Minnie Evans (Potawatomi) -- with the article linked. That way, anyone searching for her article and finding the other can just click a link and go there. A third way is to put both of them on a separate disambigution page, but where there are only two people with the same name, the hatnote usually will do. If there are three or more people, then I usually do suggest a dab page, but not for this one. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone who is not Potawatomi (and probably even most of them either) would know her native name. That's why I hesitated with what to call the page. And that disambiguation line is perfect. Thank you! Did you understand the things the copyright folks said about the photo? SusunW (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you tried to link to an image off wikipedia. Can't do that. I've tossed that link. If there was a discussion, point me to it? Images are probably the steepest learning curve on-wiki. If the image is provable as in the public domain due to age or lack of copyright restrictions, it can be uploaded to Wikimedia commons (which allows images to be used on any wikiworldwide) and linked from there. If you cannot find an image that is known to be copyright free, then, given the she is deceased, you CAN use an image based on "fair use" but that has to be uploaded to en.Wikipedia only and not commons. If the image at Kansas memory can be sourced further (to a book, or wherever it originated) that will help a lot... cool photo. If you can prove it was published (not just taken) prior to 1923, it is public domain. If it was published after 1923, but before 1963 (like this photo File:Nezperceindians1895ish.jpg, then it can also be considered public domain. Some images, regardless of date, are also released under free licenses, particularly works of the U.S. Government (see, e.g. the photo at [{Earl Old Person]]) But images owned by most states are not public domain. Worst case scenario, we have no clue, just the photo, we can still use it as a "fair use" image if we jump through more hoops (as I did at Albert, Alfred and Chris Schlechten with this image: File:Albert Schlechten1.jpg). Anyway, I can help you with this once you find me a web site that gives us the "provenance" of the image. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I gave you the link, but in any case, I put it in the talk page on the page. But here it is: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Minnie Evans. No point in repeating what I know, since it is there.

Yeah. not a lot of help there. I'd assume copyright, but the person IS deceased so no free images are apt to be found, so I say go Fair Use. I liked this one the best. But what you do is upload it here to WIkipedia (see "Upload file" in the tools box to the left of this window) and feel free to swipe the Fair Use rationale stuff I used at the Schlechten image, which falls into that same gray area. ONly use one image that's fair use (you can usually get away with two if there's a super good reason, but I wouldn't go with more than that). If you need a hand holler at me on my talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is nothing to worry about, it just means that no registered user has reviewed the page you created. When it is reviewed by a registered user it will be marked as patrolled and if they find anything that needs fixing they may tag it with a note for others to do that work. (for example if it has no sources etc.)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Gracias, mi amigo, gracias!

Andy Mabbett has sorted out both the known_for and the language issues - see new improved Bill Osceola and Billy Osceola and note new parameter mother_tongue. He seems to be on the trail of a solution to the multipe infobox question. In short, it should be possible to create a single inforbox out of a selection of infoboxes covering the range of ... things ... which a person is. Right now the Native American infobox template is not playing nicely. If & when that's sorted, we may be able to come back with some better advice. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Check out Bill Osceola. It is now possible in the Infobox to specify what Bill was |known_for=, by using fields such as |office=, |term_start= & |term-end=. That means that his Tribal Presidency now appears with start & end dates at the top of the infobox. Any issues? Are we likely to need more than one such entry? |known_for= is still available. (Again, all Andy Mabbett's work.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: and @Pigsonthewing: WOW! Yippee kayooooo! You fixed the infobox issues. Thank you so much. Looks fabulous. I cannot say with what frequency it would occur, but one could have a split term, as in the case of Jim Billie, so it is possible that one might need to have more than one such entry. I am in awe of how quickly you fixed this. Much appreciation for what you do. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the American Indian boarding schools page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SusunW. Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader), an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi SusanW. I wanted to stop by and let you know that I reviewed the "hook" for Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader), and I really enjoyed reading the article. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For an appearence on Did you know?. Nomination is here: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Minnie_Evans_(Potawatomi_leader). I'll watch it for a reviewer and you can watchlist it to answer any content or technical questions. Should go through, though a reviewer might ask for some minor tweaks. Nothing like seeing an article you've worked on hit the main page!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. I just feel like some of these folks from the controversial termination era have not been given their historical due. :)SusunW (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a wonderful area for you to be working in. Very glad you are there! Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: They put a note on it that it needs a full review. Am I supposed to do something? It has almost been a month and that seems an inordinate amount of time but maybe not. (I'd like to post Viola Hatch, but I'd also like her to show up for Women's Month, so I'm not sure about timing) SusunW (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to do a thing, they nagged me to do a "qpq" (quid pro quo) which means I was supposed to review someone else's DYK, and I fussed about that because it was a rule change - used to be you didn't have to do that when you nominated someone else's article. Anyway, I am going to but some people to see if they can take a whack at the review. The important thing is when it's nominated (which is 7 days from creation), but stuff can sit and wait on a review forever - the best thing to do is find other people who write a lot of articles - and so they need a lot of qpq's -and give them a heads up, because they prefer to review articles that they know are going to pass quickly! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Minnie has been approved for DYK and is now in the prep area, you'll get a message when it goes up on DYK. Looks like it will appear in the daytime (USA) on February 6, per Template:Did you know/Queue. (4am-4pm Pacific time). It is a blast to see "your" stuff on the main page! You can nominate (I think) 4 more articles for DYK without having to do a "qpq" review of someone else's submission - after that, you have to do a qpq for each of your own. I'd be glad to help you nominate your next new article. they have to be nominated within 7 days of either being created or if they are already up but under the 1500 word minimum, then within seven days of a 5x expansion. (I did a 5x expansion for Budweiser Clydesdales when it was just a stub). I linked all mine here: [1] Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Woot! Thank you for all of your help. I'm going to try to finish Viola this week.SusunW (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. See my talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 01:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Rosiestep: thanks :) She was fascinating to me. I have another one in the works that I am thinking should be proposed for March for Women's Month. She's still on my drawing board, but if you have time to look at her and make any suggestions I'd appreciate it. Can't figure out what to use for a "hook" for her, so much to choose from User:SusunW/Viola Hatch

Really enjoyed reading the Viola Hatch article. There are lots of hook opportunities as she's lived such a full life. Here are some editing suggestions:

1. Add her date of birth in parenthesis immediately after her name in the opening sentence: (born 12 February 1930). Try not to mix date styles, i.e. ddmmyyyy vs. mmddyyyy (Feburary 12, 1930 is in the Infobox).
2. Unless a word or phrase is highly contentious, it's a common practice to place the inline citation(s) at the end of the sentence; the first sentence in the "Early life" section is an example of where I'd make changes.
3. The second paragraph in "Early life" should be turned into a sentence, i.e. "Hatch had several siblings, including..."
4. If you add a comma after a date or year in the case of adverbial or nonessential phrases, be consistent and do so throughout, examples of where you could add it: "In 1961", "On 12 September 1972", "In 2012".
5. For those references which are missing the publisher or work, add it, i.e. #18, #19, #20.

Hopefully, these suggestions make sense. Feel free to ignore them if you wish. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• I only offer a difference of opinion to Rosiestep's excellent advice on the "end of sentence" issue. Having had to take over the work of other people, on wikipedia, I like to keep the sources with the material sourced rather than piling them up at the end of the sentence - at least if there are more than two citations needed to cover the material. It can become a real challenge to verify which fact came from which of several sources, particularly where, as with Hatch, some material had to be carefully gleaned a snippet at a time. But that's JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:, @Montanabw: Thank you both. I think I got all the corrections mentioned except the info box. I cannot change the date format. I always use European style dates mm/dd/yyyy as have lived abroad for too many years. Still not sure what hook I'll use, but I'll figure it out. Truly appreciate the input. Gracias! SusunW (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Montanabw: So hard to pick because she has had sooooo many accomplishments and truly been involved in almost every major event in the 20th century which involved native people. Too corny? DYK ...that Viola Hatch helped establish gaming for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes but the life of this activist has been anything but child's play? SusunW (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's a 200 character limit and shorter is better. I'd just say, ...that Viola Hatch helped establish gaming for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes ? or ...that in spite of the (insert challenging thing here), Viola Hatch helped establish gaming for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes? Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Montanabw that shorter is better. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:, @Montanabw: There's only 142 characters including spaces in the first one, but as an alternate I'd rather use her AIM involvement or NIYC as those are more important contributions in my eyes. The gambling thing was all about money, and I only used it for the "double-entendre." So, here's the the options, as I see it:

• ...that Viola Hatch helped establish gaming for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes but the life of this activist has been anything but child's play?
• ...that Viola Hatch, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, was a founder of the National Indian Youth Council and an AIM activist? SusunW (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• My favorite little tool is this (it's great for keeping your hooks under the 200 character limit) I like the second one best, but I'd add "of the" or something like that:
  • ...that Viola Hatch, of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, was a founder of the National Indian Youth Council and an AIM activist?

Or this one?

• ... that Viola Hatch of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes worked on an Indian task force that created the basis of Nixon's 1970 Special Recommendations on Indian Affairs. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That one is kind of "meh" to me, but no technical flaws. Montanabw^(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we'll see what happens. I took it live and did the nomination. Figured out the technical glitches, but I must say, I am truly frustrated by all the tedious programming that is required for writers to know. Had to edit the template to get it to save properly and then had to exit and re-enter my nomination because apparently someone else did it simultaneously. SusunW (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. It does get better. But it's like do it yourself home remodeling! Montanabw^(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks to you and all the people who help me, I learn a lot. I managed to get this one live, but it has some needs review thingy on it. I think each time I do an article, I learn some new technical thing. But I also decide something is too complicated to figure out. (Like the photograph thing.) :P SusunW (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll tweak anything that needs to be tweaked, watch what I do. 90% of what I've learned around here is copying and pasting from other people who know what they are doing. The other 10% I screw up the first time and someone sets me straight (some more kindly than others!) Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: love what you did with the footnotes. That will be my next trick. :) SusunW (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I need a qpq for the next article I create, so I just went ahead and reviewed this one for you, seeing as how I did virtually nothing with it. Which footnotes? Montanabw^(talk) 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: You made Viola's footnotes show up in 3 columns instead of one long list. Much easier on the viewer. SusunW (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that. (editing on autopilot) Glad to help! Montanabw^(talk) 03:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gone for 12 hours and everything gets sorted out! Lol! Glad you chose that particular hook as it says a lot in <200 characters. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL @Rosiestep: I just figured if I didn't "push the button" she'd be one of those you could work on forever. Lots of involvement, lots of major issues she worked on. Now to figure out who is my next victim, er uh, biographical subject. Bwahahahaha SusunW (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that is for sure. Looking forward to seeing who's next! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

strong women from neglected minorities

Thank you, Susun, for quality articles such as Mexican Kickapoo, Minnie Evans and Tillie Hardwick, introducing strong women from neglected minorities who change politics, for overcoming the "frustrating and cumbersome" part of programming gracefully: "Every little bit helps", - it's people like you who close a gender gap here that others only complain about! - You are an awesome Wikipedian from the start!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I truly love learning. I learn as much from researching these people (sometimes more) than an article could ever impart. The world is full of Sheroes to discover. SusunW (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On 6 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Minnie Evans, chair of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, prevented termination of her tribe and won reparations for her people from the Indian Claims Commission? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your first DYK article! I hope you are very proud of this as it's an awesome achievement! Even 1,000 DYKs later, you'll still remember this one fondly. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I dunno if I have 1000 articles in me, but we shall see :) SusunW (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I'm a bit over 200 articles created since I started (in 2006) of which 40-some I've put up for DYK. But I'm at something like 70,000 raw edits to wikipedia, and that's a bit scary to look back upon! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Oak Hill Industrial Academy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar ⨹ 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. I was hoping that you might give this some thought as I suspect you have views here? No rush ... no ideas? Thanks for listening. Cheers Victuallers (talk)

@Victuallers: as I said, I'm pretty new to editing. I have no idea what Wikimania is. When I go to your link above, it says Wikimania is in Mexico City. Is it a physical event in DF? Or does it just say DF because I am in Mexico and it is a web-based conference?

I read your proposal and I agree that women are under-represented and specifically think that applies to women of color and diverse ethnicities. In part, that is because it is Wikipedia in English, but in part that is because women in general were "property" for millennia and anyone who was not of the "ruling" classes was unworthy of being written about. The problem with avoiding English-speaking white women entirely is that you then have no coverage of those women most familiar in popular culture. I have never worked on an edithon and the wikiprojects I am involved in do not direct work of editors, but I could be wrong about that. Basically it seems to be "do what you want to do," which works well for creativity but may not increase coverage. Events are likely to increase coverage for the short term, but not have long term effect. The big question is how do you increase coverage and sustain that growth in articles? Maybe quarterly or semi-annual mini-edithons? I think that like in newspapers the "you also might find this interesting" might be a ploy that would work, i.e. if you ware writing an article on a woman who say worked on atomic bombs, go to that main page for bombs and in the for further reading link to your woman's page. Just articles aren't enough, IMHO, because women aren't associated with the topics. For example, did anyone really know, or even hear until the most recent decade, that the Nobel Prize for isolating DNA was based upon the work of a woman? SusunW (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input SusunW. You represent the kind of skilled newbie that we would like to find lots of. Wikimania is where once a year Wikipedians appear in groups from around the world for several days. This year it Mexico as they won the bid. My comment about avoiding white women is to fold the argument of concentrating on women alone. They are a minority, but they also include some more privileged members too. However at some point you have to say "thats the group that Im trying to help". Even if within that group there are some very deserving people and some very very deserving people.

Be careful about overstating your case at DYK. You are fine so far, but all they really want are footnotes. You did well to explain notability (some editors who think everything exists online are often guilty of recentism and have more systemic bias than they may realize). If you go into too much detail, some idiot will start accusing you of "original research" (see WP:NOR) so just focus on the source material. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. That's a hard one, as these obscure areas are indeed difficult to source. Thanks :) SusunW (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can source to offline sources, there is WP:AGF used on a lot of the historic articles. Just cite what you DID find to the proper hardcopy source, just like an ordinary bibliography. Also, if you haven't found Hathi trust yet, that can be a gold mine! Another thing to be aware of is WP:SYNTH - wikipedia can't be a substitute for mainstream publishing - which is important when it comes to whacko theories and tinfoil helmet stuff like, hmmm Thiomersal controversy- but it does bite us mainstream historic research folks in the butt from time to time (god knows I have ripped my hair out on some of "my" horse articles when people challenge what I KNOW to be blatently obvious). So we have to cite to published third party sources, but offline ones are OK! (FWIW, I have one article on WP already (and I'm not admitting which one) that has a reference to one of my own RL-written articles. I wasn't supposed to do that, but I have 70,000 edits, 216 created articles and almost 20 featured articles so they can bite my butt! LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely have found Hathitrust and it is a good one! I did bring my library of Oklahoma Native sources (some 500 volumes) with me, thus good to know I can use them. I don't *think* I have violated any of those Wiki rules. I try really hard to stick to the rules. The Belvin one definitely was difficult because he was polarizing but some of the sources are very slanted one way or the other. Everyone has a side. Our job is just to report the sides. Still in the instance of the school, seemed odd that a southern school catering to double minorities would not be considered notable. I don't think there is enough for me to put together a piece on the doctor, but I am gonna funnel it to a historian friend and see if she do something with it. She is of freedman descendant and now that I found the guy, I am curious. No possible way that I am gonna find information on him in Nowata, Oklahoma from here though. SusunW (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are doing fine. The trick is to keep your defenses short and focus on identifying sources and citing them when it's relevant. [{WP:V]] rules all. The topic is clearly notable, the reviewer isn't going to kick about that I don't believe - I think they were just thinking aloud, so to speak. There is a systemic bias problem on wikipedia, though - I've run across the "Indians are invisible" problem on WP a fair amount (know a Brit who just didn't understand why it was offensive to say "Red Indian") and some of the side comments I'm seeing in various talk forums here suggest that some people don't even understand things like Black History Month (And I guess if you live in India or something, it does seem odd). It's pretty much a microcosm of the big world - Just keep cool, use a nice pretty bibliography and refer to "page XYZ of source Foo says, "fe, fi, fo, fum" and ping me if someone gets weird or rude. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review of He Zehui at DYK. I can't help too much as its my article that you have reviewed. I came here to welcome a new talent to DYK, but I see that other mates have already done so above. Anyway. Welcome Victuallers (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Victuallers: I figure I will owe a review at some point and I really did enjoy your piece. SusunW (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Is DYK more stringent in its requirements than Wikipedia itself? Am I truly required to find a source that specifically states that Oak Hill was in Indian Territory? I am confused as it seems self-evident given the time frame and location. SusunW (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like czar blessed it, so all is well and you made a solid defense. Keep in mind that some of our QP editors are not American and they don't have much of a grasp of US western history (even some east coast editors don't.) Native American topics are one of the places where WP has a serious systemic bias problem and one does occasionally have the desire to rip one's hair out when people don't see what is obvious so folks like you and I. (I once had a heated debate with a Brit who truly didn't understand why a phrase like "red Indian" was offensive...) There is the guideline WP:POPE, but when you get to the higher levels of scrutiny, the people who want everything footnoted increases. There are also a few trolls and other jackasses around here, but luckily, czar was not - he seems like a good egg and understood what you were trying to say! Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Montanabw: Yes, he was nice about it :) and I take from your comments DYK is not more strict than Wikipedia itself. As always, your help is invaluable and I appreciate it more than I can say. SusunW (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I wouldn't say "more" strict so much as just "strict" - you get scrutiny and they hold you to all the rules; something you can sometimes sloppy about if you don't submit to DYK. Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Veronica Sanchez is a great topic for DYK. Political controversy is not a problem there if the article is well sourced and the hook doesn't get too in your face on the main page. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks @Montanabw: :) I'd go with something totally plain Jane (or is that Juana) ...that in 2006 Verónica Cruz Sánchez became the first Mexican human rights activist to be awarded the Defender of Human Rights award from HRW? (140 characters) SusunW (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• That would work. If it's under the 200 character limit, spell out Human Rights Watch. Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On 19 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oak Hill Industrial Academy, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Oak Hill Industrial Academy was a school in Indian Territory for the children of Choctaw freedmen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oak Hill Industrial Academy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salvador Alvarado, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mérida, Chihuahua and Luis Cabrera. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. FYI, there's an interesting Buzzfeed article out today that you might find useful when editing Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico, especially in the lead and in general comments about the pace of change. I left a link on the talk page.

BTW, I changed the map, because IMO individual cases in Mexico are not comparable to ones in the US, which the rings were created for. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Muchas gracias! I have been hoping something like this would come out! There was a blog which I used as the basis to expand the article last year, but obviously that required finding records of the cases in each state. I also like the new map. Will see what updates I can make to the page. P.S. OMG, Edomex Finally has a decision! \o/ \o/ \o/ SusunW (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems their map is already a bit out of date, as there appear to have been court cases and civil unions in a few additional states, such as Durango. If I messed up, feel free to change the map, or, if you don't have an SVG editor, let me know (I'll take your word for it) and I'll do it. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's impractical to keep track of how many court decisions in favor of SSM have been found in each state? Perhaps we should have two colors: light gold (as for Estonia) for <5 cases, and the current dark gold for the ≥5 cases that would legally compel the legislature to act. That would be more in line with the use of dark gold on other SSM maps, and so less likely to raise objections; also, it would be interesting to see which states are being recalcitrant. (My understanding is that at least Chihuahua and Yucatan are currently in contempt of court, though no finding of contempt has yet been found.) Let me know what you think. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I have found no article that specifically says what happens, but since both Yucatán and Chihuahua have gone back to court to have the legislatures declared in contempt. Not sure what happens if they win, so I'm watching those hoping to get an answer. I like the idea of denoting those that have reached the 5 cases. SusunW (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the refs to establish which ones have and which have not? — kwami (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Pretty sure the only 2 that are at 5 are Yucatán and Chihuahua. Colima might be, but they have that "wedlock" classification that is more than Civil Union but less than marriage and before the SCJN to determine if it is discriminatory. There are several states that are at 4 rulings. But close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear war. ;) P.S. Am rechecking to make sure. Nayarit, has 5. SusunW (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, marked just those two. Also on North America map, but not world map. (State outlines aren't there.) — kwami (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You mean 3? Did you see the P.S. on Nayarit? I recounted and reverifed. Definitely has 5. SusunW (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, didn't see it. Done. — kwami (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Love the new map :) SusunW (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

On 1 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Verónica Cruz Sánchez, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2006 Verónica Cruz Sánchez became the first Mexican human rights activist to be awarded the Defender of Human Rights award from HRW? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Verónica Cruz Sánchez. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, good to know! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your always positive input and support. It truly makes a difference. SusunW (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You made my day! How do you feel about an infobox? (Some love them, some hate them, I find them useful.) I wrote articles about women, for example Violeta Dinescu, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I find that they summarize the information effectively for the most part. I usually forget to add them, LOL, because it is such a pain to try to find photographs and figure out the copyright rules on them and hunting for an article that has a user box I can copy is frustrating. There should just, IMO be a drop down, like the notes section so that you can add a box of your choosing. SusunW (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't add one to an article I didn't create - I am so dangerous - but you can copy from the example, - I use ((infobox person)) for all people, thinking of the comment by a friend - who is considered even more dangerous: "unless someone wishes to argue that ... was not a person". You don't need an image, just leave those parameters blank, in case you find one later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you! The things people think are worthy of getting riled about are unfathomable to me. ~Shakes head vigorously~ SusunW (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)