User talk:SusunW/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Fanny Schiller

Hi, don't be discouraged. Sitush told me about Emereo the other day, so I think he just saw that and several of the other mirror sources and just assumed all of the content was inadequate and reverted without much further though. There's nothing wrong with it, except a couple of sources. I've left a paragraph in licensing and sourcing for those sources to avoid anyway. For films, try to look in google books and paste urls into here. I picked Mexican actresses as I knew you were interested in Mexico/Latin America and female biographies so don't leave all of the remainder to me! I doubt anybody here really knows much about the content they produce, that's the joy of researching! The problem with writing start class articles based on translations from Spanish wiki is that the content is usually unsourced or poorly sourced which can make it really difficult to produce a quality article with great sourcing. Generally I'd prefer to glean some major facts and the basics if unsourced and then research the article myself, but if you think the content is all decent then go for it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I am very discouraged. Rudeness is untenable. The thing is, as I have said, I am well aware they are not sourced. I had marked a whole bunch of places as citation needed so that I could find sourcing. The claim that he didn't know I was working on it, is questionable, but unlike him, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he genuinely did not realize it. I need to walk away for a few hours at least. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Where was he rude though?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(watching) I guess we may improve communication. How about a sign on top {{construction}}? It could be placed on a stub soon, - avoiding that two project members pick the same one, both translate the whole thing, then end in an edit conflict. - We could leave a comment on top or in a section that search for sources will start. - We could translate in steps, only translate what we can source. I typically start with the lead, list of works, literature, external links, {{Authority control}} (always include that, picks up from Wikidata!) and cats. Then I can leave it for a while and can make it a DYK much later. We could think about a banner on the talk, saying something like: this article is a product of project itw, please be patient, sources will follow ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Seriously? I made edits at 9:17, 10:42, 10:43, 10:57, 11:06, 11:49, 11:58. At 9:17 I posted the translation flag on the talk page. I had posted "citation needed" on things I was still working on. I typed an update, went to save it, and the entire piece was gone. The entirety of 6 hours work went away with nary a discussion, no assumption of good faith and what appeared to me to be snide commentary. No one owns the articles, we all (hopefully) are working on the assumption of improving the content. By helping each other we improve the articles. There was no intent to help with this action, whatsoever. Had there been desire to improve the sourcing, he could have added information, as you did. Had he wanted to educate me about the questionable sources, he could have communicated with me. None of that was done. It was an extremely aggressive action and one that appears to reflect ownership issues, IMO. He also gutted Blanch, in much the same manner and the comment was even more snide. "please stop citing unreliable sources and mirrors" does not rate politeness because he is using "please", but rather smacks of insinuation that we had had multiple conversations on the sourcing. I am still trying to learn this system, have very little knowledge of programming and have very little access to sourcing that is available in the US and elsewhere. I contribute because I enjoy it, but if it is not enjoyable, if we cannot respect each other, there is little reason to be involved in Wikipedia. SusunW (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Going back through the edit history, I would have to say that the actions were a little bit shocking within good faith assumptions, especially for someone like SusunW who has been doing so much good work lately: reverting without much explanation was innappropriate. That being said @SusunW: fortunately and unfortunately, the ease of undoing something is taken for granted by very experienced editors, and we have a culture of undoing eachothers work when in a quick moving situation (and because its a Wiki, everything is still in the Help:Page history, so we can recover it if someone disagrees with the snap decision). Its part of the Be bold culture that sometimes becomes a little bit too bold and aggressive. I would recommend continuing to (kindly) call people out for pushing the acceptability of this functionality (see Wikipedia:Reverting). We need to encourage a change in culture that is more inclusive and gives more positive messages to less experienced editors (imagine if you had been a first time editor and reverted :P ) . At the same time, I would recommend trying not to think of it as a personal affront: its often hard to communicate effort put into edits, and its also hard to empathetically respond to other editors, when the other editor doesn't understand that effort. Also, be wary of the three reversion rule, if you decide to undo someones reversion of your own edits, Sadads (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anybody wants to have hours of work reverted. But it happened, we can't change it now, the content has been restored and still stands. Let's move on anyway. It identified a common source issue, if nothing else came of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: can you please explain what authority control is and why one would use that? SusunW (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a listing of relevant library numbers and catalogues related to a subject. When I started I had to ask people about the German numbers (now GND), and sometimes those had to ask for clarification and better assignment of a number first (people known under several names sometimes had several numbers ...) - nothing you have to worry about, you just include the template (before the cats) - and if Wikidata has something, it will appear miraculously at the bottom. Look at the poet translated today, Andreas Tscherning. Don't ask me what all these numbers mean. With the German one, you can go to another template, and miraculously all publications "by and about" the subject (which can be a composition etc) in the German National Library appear on a click. If it helps some people, why not? - This is my simple belief also about the infoboxes. I haven't been crucified for it, but have gained some understanding what "rude" may mean ;) - I can't add an infobox to this poet, because I didn't "create" him. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

ps: Did you know that I made a DYK about encouragement once? ... that the song "Ermutigung" by Wolf Biermann, encouraging people not to become hardened in hard times, was written for Peter Huchel, then under house arrest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you. I will see if I can add the authority control. I totally appreciate your willingness to help and answer all of my questions. @Sadads: thank you for your understanding and support. I am not sure how you found me, but I appreciate your coaching and assistance. I could care less if someone changes an article, to improve content. You are absolutely correct that it was the way that it was done that was at issue. I would never revert an edit that was not blatantly vandalism. There is always a different approach that allows one to be kind. If there is no way to be respectful, then I will just walk away. Real life is much more important than anything that happens here. Just my two cents. SusunW (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know a person (here Sadads), ask the precious list ;) - tells you a lot about when and for what. (Wanted to give Precious to Sadads for the above post, because I believe that sort of personal communication is important, - finding out I just gave it in women's history month, - sorry about my memory.) - I also look at the list in search for encouragement sometimes, - more than 1000 people praised for something good, and no end in sight, - it's not difficult to find a new one every day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the dark side of "teh wiki" Susun!  :-P And @Dr. Blofeld:, be a little nicer next time? Susun is a very productive newbie, but she IS still a new user and one of the most promising I've seen! Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Susun is a very productive newbie, but she IS still a new user and one of the most promising I've seen!" Same applies to RO Montanabw. Oh the hypocrisy. Stop stalking RO and acting like a 7 year old school girl bully around her waiting to pounce on her edits and inviting others to criticize her work and I might just begin to listen to whatever injustice you think I did to Susun here. Keeping in mind I was the one who organized the topic choice to get Susun involved and I was the one who restored the reverted content and I was the one who said "don't be discouraged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

SusunW, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to remove material that is not vandalism, although I appreciate that you may not yet realise this. Despite what Sadads says, there was nothing "shocking" about what I did, nor was it rude. You made a mistake in using that source, I made a mistake in assuming that it had been copied over with the translation. You will see that most of the time I do add {{cn}} in such circumstances.

Stuff happens and, really, it is no big deal. That Montanabw then reinstated the mirror source is a big deal: there really isn't much excuse for it given the various conversations that had gone on.

Don't be discouraged, carry on doing what you do and learning how this weird place works. Just as in the real world, it isn't perfect and never will be. What is happening now is what we call a "pile on", ie: people who should know better are joining in and making things worse. That, too, happens in the real world. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And here is my explanation of a few days ago to another new-ish contributor regarding the same issue (ie: using Emereo as a source). Just in case no-one has explained it in a way that makes much sense to you. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(watching, having nothing to do with the article, + ec:) "Discouraged" - justified or not - is a big deal which needs to be addressed, - piling on ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm discouraged almost daily by the stuff that goes on here but by and large I keep ploughing on. Maybe I've got a thick skin but I think it is more complex than that. In any event, I'm probably not entirely sane otherwise why would I continue after receiving death threats etc? I didn't see Montanabw or Sadads offering any sympathetic words when those things happened (and they have happened on a few occasions). I'm human, too, you know. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and Susun, you know just how supportive (and pleasant) I've been of you and your work in recent weeks. Do you not think that it's a little irritating to me too to be made to feel by Montana like I'm somehow at fault here when I restored your content! Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Sitush and Dr. Blofeld, I was talking about your discouragement also, and perhaps mine. Having been called an arrogant co-offender wasn't easy to swallow - but I did ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always been a strong supporter of the content you produce Gerda, and I do think you should be able to add infoboxes in minor articles you create/work on like transwikied 16th century poets! I just draw the line with adding infoboxes and being involved in long disputes with people who promote articles to FA status because of the time wasting and stress it causes for everybody involved in them. I think you should just respect the people who promote the article's opinion and leave it be, perhaps then you wouldn't encounter difficulties with any of us. If you could agree to that as I said at arb I'd support you being given some of your rights back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See the page in question. If someone writes a new FA without an infobox, I don't say a word. If people throw out an infobox that has been there for eight years, serving readers, I question it. That doesn't make me arrogant nor a co-offender, and there were more sweet attributes. If a newbie adds an infobox to a FA and gets reverted, I say something. - For some reason all those who commented in a way hard to swallow (not you that is!) - some of whom I considered friends so far - haven't read that I didn't ask to have restrictions lifted, only reworded to get rid of the ownership aspect. I did most of the work on Polish Requiem, made it DYK, want to add an infobox without a revert "not so" (I had honestly forgotten I had not created it) or having to ask others to proxy-edit, - talking about the preferences of Main editors so much. - I don't know how to say there that the edits that got me restricted (reverted as bold or called disruptive) have been made by now by other people as an improvement to Wikipedia. Viva-Verdi did most of those, blessed be his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

How about though where an infobox is thrown out of a C class article which has been there for eight years, and then the editors put in tens of hours of work over several weeks to promote a core article to FA status. What's more important to our readers overall? The loss of the box, or the fact that an important article has been promoted? It's surely a small price to pay for such a promotion? As for Polish Requiem, as much I much respect Nikkimaria and a few others, if you wrote most of the content IMO it should be more your call on whether to include on infobox or not, even if in some cases I don't support them. In that instance I checked and actually agree that it looks better with an image and the box than bare in that particular instance, even if the info in the box is fairly limited, but I'm not going to restore an infobox and get into an edit war with Nikki or Schonken.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria doesn't edit-war, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, wow. Had to go get coffee. First, thank you @Sitush: for your explanation, though we will continue to disagree about reverting. IMO, there is never a justifiable reason. The world will not end, no one will be harmed, there will be no actual blood if an edit that you do not like, agree with, or is unsupported stays on Wikipedia long enough for you to contact the person who posted it and discuss it. If it cannot be reasonably discussed, then it seems to me something else is at play. This whole discussion has been a learning moment. I appreciate all the comments that allow me to learn how this system works and how the personalities interplay. @Montanabw: Thank you for your support. You are correct, there is a dark side to Wikipedia, but as in all of life, it creates balance in the world. I was naïve to assume that it would not cross my threshold if I did not invite it. @Dr. Blofeld: I didn't thank you above, when I thanked Gerda Arendt and Sadads because "let's move on" pretty much was dismissive. You have indeed been supportive in the project until this incident and I appreciate that. I disagree with your statement that one can possibly know the reliability of a source if one does not know the field of study. That is one of the reasons that I have said and will continue to do so that wiki's policy of no original sources is misguided. What one does not want is sources that are produced by the subject, but original sources capture a moment in time. A document gives information, someone's report on that information may or may not be accurate, and once things are in print, they have a life of their own. (Which is usually not physically harmful or world ending). One does not have to draw a conclusion from say, a date of birth listed on a birth certificate, it is just reported. Not having expertise in a field also, though, helps improve content as people look at topics in a way that someone familiar might not. My final thoughts, I see a lot of passion in everything that is written here and that is a very good thing, as if people aren't passionate about what they do, they are likely to be apathetic about the outcome. But that being said, the goal and the focus should be on making the encyclopedia the best that it can be. Edit wars, reverting, and the politics indicate that there is ego at play instead of the focus on the content, IMO. Disagreements can and do happen all the time with respectful behavior and that should be the goal if we are to assume good faith. As I said before, I will finish the articles in question. I will help you Dr. Blofeld finish the Mexican actresses. We'll see how it goes from there. SusunW (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) ps: Susun, thank you for using your place for a mysterious exchange, enough of it I think. I will try to bring BWV 11 to GA today, for Ascension day tomorrow, and wouldn't mind a review tomorrow, hint hint, - I didn't create it but thank goodness it got an infobox before the case closed, - very few Bach cantatas were left behind (and most of them got one anyway). The kafkaesque restrictions came with a majority of one vote last minute, - I am very proud of them, not easy to achieve a thing like that with a clean blocklog and without a single warning before ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I said "let's move on", not to dismiss your genuinely hurt feelings Susun, but to avoid wikidrama escalating. I couldn't see anything to gain from continuing to complain about something which was impossible to turn back. I restored the content and replaced the mirror sources, but I've been made to feel like the bad guy here. Not that after putting in six hours you didn't have a right to feel peeved, but I can understand why Sitush got the impression that the content translated had been based on mirror sources. You're right that it would have been better to discuss it first. I don't think he even intended to fully revert anyway. Yes, there's some sources which seem OK but aren't, if we avoid those we should be OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: You aren't the bad guy in my book. I will always walk away rather than allow drama to escalate. Hopefully in the future, everyone will be a bit more diplomatic and situations like this will not occur, but I'm thinking that is just my basic optimism and not a realistic picture. I have found some great sources today so far and restored the Rosa Mexicano information on Anita Blanch's entry. SusunW (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I know, but Montanabw turned up and trout slapped me first, and then asked me to be nice to you here too. I don't honesty think she knew the real background behind it, but assumed I was attacking you for non reliable sources and saw it as an opportunity to retaliate for helping RO. Sorry Montana, but you have been coming across that pettily to me in recent weeks... Why else would she turn up and trout slap me for helping you and restoring the content? I know you're one of the most promising new contributors on here, and that's influenced some of the rounds I've been creating to interest you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, Blofeld, I have way more to do with my time than "retaliate" against you for anything - and half the time you haven't supported RO and sometimes you have been supportive of me. Trust me, I can't keep up with all that. I like SusunW, it looked like you and Sitush were bullying her. I'll cop to WP:NAM, because I don't like to see good editors run off! Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I wasn't bullying her, you've got it wrong. I was helping her and restored what was deleted. Get it right and take your own advice some time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec = edit conflict, and that's what I wanted to cover:) Practical advice: don't let things get to six hours work arriving at an edit conflict. Save in between, with an edit summary saying it's not the end (as I just saved with only 5 of movements of the cantata covered, and the others possibly much later today. Edit in little steps, - also makes it easier to find something in the history later if needed. IF you arrive at an edit conflict, don't panic! Nothing is lost - unless you go back, link to somewhere else and can't return. Look then what's easier: to cut your addition, open the newest version and insert it, - or make the changes right there, - something I try to avoid, - or return to the previous version, overwrite it with your newest version and insert their changes, - something I do when theirs is something truly minor which I can easily remember and reproduce ;) - Happy editing, always better with music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

BWV 11 nominated for GA (could still add, but am too tired, will travel tomorrow), BWV 165 scheduled ;)

@Gerda Arendt: Congratulations! Travel safely. I totally understand. I am exhausted, but reworked all of the sourcing on Anita Blanch and in doing so was able to create an article on her sister Isabelita Blanch, which has no Spanish Wiki so no chance on the earth that the sources were copied from there. ;) I have 6 people headed my way for dinner, so Fanny Schiller is just gonna have to wait until tomorrow, but I'll get to her. SusunW (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Imagine: not only was the oratorio made GA today (by Dr. Blofeld, my most ardent admirer who only occasionally bans me from his talk), - also already approved for DYK! - Lead: you have to source quotations, otherwise everything should be a summary of sourced information in the body, not needing a repetition of the refs. - Latest article is a personal attack which will grow ;) - Did you see the flowers on my talk? In a good mood --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that per WP:LEAD you don't need to source the lead of articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

only IF the material IS sourced elsewhere in the article! If the only place it's mentioned is in the lead, then it does have to be sourced. That said, as the lead should be a summary of the article, ideally all material in the lead is used in the body of the article as well.

For what it's worth, Susun, I was blindsided by Emereo, too, at Carnival in French Guiana. Appears that our wikigoddess was taking a siesta and didn't nudge me about it being a no-no site. #ahwell #sigh --Rosiestep (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep Apparently films is a much hotter topic than my usual activist women, who no one even ever seems to look at. I just finished adding Fanny's films through the 1950s and hadn't started on the 1960s, when some guy removed all the red links Dr. Blofeld asked me to put in, so....I am walking away once again. Poor Fanny, I am never going to find the reference about her voice over work that I lost when Sitush did his blanking and I lost my edit mid-stream and now I am about done trying to update her films, as I have this new guy changing everything before I even get it input. Do these people not READ? Apparently not, as I noted that I was asked to redlink them. SMDH. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been on a "lessons learned" kick in the last 24 hours... probably because I just returned from a pretty intense conference in Washington D.C. (earlier this week), where there was discussion about lessons learned. But in this context, let me say that while Wikipedia is full of reverters and deleters and arguers and naysayers, Edit History is "forever". Some reverting/undeleting can be done by anyone... and it looks like some editors have come along and offered you some assistance. Some of it can only be done by an admin, so, if you ever need that sort of help, remember, I have a mop. Also, I want to mention that I click Save a lot; many of us have found it is best to avoid adding big chunks at a time. And a third thing: sometimes I'll mention in the Edit Summary why I'm doing something such as: "Adding redlinks per suggestion from [[user: ]]" or "... blahblahblah per suggestion at DYK nom page", etc; it helps other editors understand why I've made a particular edit, especially if it wasn't my idea to begin with. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia would run so much more smoothly if people just butted out of the work of others and stopped complaining about notability, sourcing and interfering wouldn't it! I've reverted him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It would. I so do not understand the mentality to not ask before one does something, when it is clear that someone is "in the process of editing" AND especially when there are notes on the file. I'll come back to her later when the dust has cleared. SusunW (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Stronzo bestiale! I don't want to get into 3RR but he will be reverted again by somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The stubs on the Mexican films are still too short for my liking, but when there's a zillion missing films it's difficult to ignore them. Our coverage of that era for Mexican films is shocking. Still I guess at least basic director and cast info and decent book source is something. I don't feel comfortable with creating too many at once now. I'll do another batch tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally understand that. I think I finally talked him into restoring the redlinks, but am not touching Fanny for a couple of days to make sure he is not in revert mode again. I have moved on to Rita Macedo. SusunW (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The best way to cover missing films really is by director. I began creating templates for Argentine cinema, I must continue to create stubs and do the same with Mexico. You really do a terrific job with these actresses, I'll put an Argentine golden age list of 10 up for you. Some of the articles are so good on es wiki that if translated I reckon we could actually get a few of them up to GA. A GA on a Latin woman would be something. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld I am glad the arguing on Fanny seems to have stopped. Rosiestep that's why I always try to "create" in a draft. Unfortunately on Fanny, she was already an article and I was just trying to make her better than 2 sentences. I try to remember to save often, but when I am having to translate and write, I sometimes forget. That is what happened in the voice over section and for the life of me, I cannot find the source. What I remember of it is that she was the "official voice" of some famous US voice actor when her films were released in Mexico. Can't remember the lady's name and cannot find the source as my history must be deleted every few hours or there are search problems. It's a Mexico thing. *sigh* In the mean time, I finished Rita Macedo. Fascinating woman. I did not use, but so enjoyed reading her youngest daughter's tribute. When I die, I hope someone clandestinely steals my ashes and takes them to all the places I love. :) youngest daughter's tribute SusunW (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if it's an article you can calmly work in a sandbox for passages that need longer work: copy from article to user space, make your changes there, before adding them to the article check if anything happened to it in the meantime, and (if any) treat them like described in edit conflict above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Like SusunW (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ana Montenegro

Ana Montenegro has been on my Gender Gap Redlist for quite some time, but I never got around to writing her up. I'm delighted to see that you're interested in her, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Almost done with her. Give me about an hour ;) SusunW (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: it's up. Cannot find much on her writing. Maybe you can improve? I suspect that a lot of the early stuff ... "hundreds of articles" may have been destroyed as her magazines were clearly banned. Stuff published from East Germany would be where? And then there is the whole name thing. If she really didn't take Montenegro until exile, is the earlier stuff under Carmo? I tried that but found nothing. SusunW (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice article. I really couldn't find more "new" information. This basically repeats everything you've already written, with the addition that we learn she has a granddaughter Sara, but nothing new on Ana's life. Short of some of those periodicals becoming digitized, I'm not sure where to get any further information. There's probably some information in German language periodicals somewhere (where?). I thought the best bet for additional content would be with googling Carmo, but that's a deadend, at least in terms of what I can see here in the US. I created some other Brazilian feminist articles earlier today and at least two of the women also belonged to the Partido Comunista Brasileiro. I'll look to see if there's anything which ties them together. What really surprises me, though, is that other women's bios aren't already linked to Ana's article as I thought I had come across her name over and over again in the last 2-3 years when working on this and that bio. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything to really link her to to keep her from being an orphan except Rádio Mayrink Veiga. The one plus of that was that I found a couple sources definitively showing notability and deleted a notability tag on the radio station that had been there since 2012. I though Carmo would help too and it didn't. And just as an FYI, I ran all the publications through the Brazilian database thingy I found showing the one magazine was banned, I find no mention of her whatsoever. *sigh* Maybe something will turn up. SusunW (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I definitely owe you at least one of these for your work on Mexican actresses alone. But it means a lot to me that you also created some Bulgarian plays as on some of them I feel like I'm on my own! Keep up the sterling work Susun! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! You did the last Mexican woman stub and I knew if I even looked at her I'd want to expand her, so I hopped to the plays and whipped out two of them. ;) SusunW (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. Furius did I think. For Lamarque it might be best to start from scratch from Spanish wiki in your sandbox and then override the current article and add anything salvageable from it to the sandbox version!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Per female logic, you better first retrieve salvageable bits before you override (unless you want to dig in the history later), - I noticed misunderstandings because of unintended saving of an old version, happens easily when you look at one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This one is fairly easy. As there are no sources. I am reworking a paragraph at a time in the sandbox and then pasting it into the article. That way, she still has a decent article, I don't lose stuff that I haven't sourced yet, etc. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! For films and TV series though can you avoid adding quote marks? Just italicize them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Struggling with the Panama history ones, can you take care of the two independence ones Independence of Panama from Spain and Independence Act of Panama? You might have to watch out for POV on Spanish wiki though and wording as if Panama was always independent. A stub is fine on each.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: you got it. I'll do stubs and they can be fleshed out later. SusunW (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work! Can you add a bit to Vilma Reyes, I'm not sure how that got mixed in with the Honduran scientists!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Will add her to my to do list.

@Dr. Blofeld: Okay, I added a bunch of sourcing and a bio such as there is. Couldn't find any entry in WorldCat so just listed the poems and the one published book I found. Wasn't sure how to list the anthologies. SusunW (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow!! great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of María Luisa Elío

Hello! Your submission of María Luisa Elío 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! Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for María Luisa Elío

Thanks for your help with this great project Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jomí García Ascot

Thanks for your help with this great project Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Guatemalan writers

Margarita Carrera and Angelina Acuña might interest you. If you're busy with other things, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) @Rosiestep: I'll just add them to my never decreasing list. Mexican activists, Romanian architects, Haciendas, Argentine actresses ... LOL SusunW (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Great! And let me know if I'm leaving too many suggestions. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Baca Municipality) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Baca Municipality, SusunW!

Wikipedia editor Robvanvee just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great article!

To reply, leave a comment on Robvanvee's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The last of those: congratulations to being autopatrolled, which means trusted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. LOL, you know me well. @Gerda Arendt: I had no idea what it meant, but there were 25 of those that happened all at once. From the guy's page, the explanation was just that patrolling makes sure you are not a bot or a vandal. So...I was going to ask, but you've saved me the trouble. SusunW (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do a thing, just noticed on my watchlist, - thank DragonflySixtyseven, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes you did, @Gerda Arendt:, you explained "autopatrol" to me. I didn't leave Dragonfly a message because his message pretty much made it clear that patrolling was a usual thing, but not what autopatrol was. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Autopatrolled" means that, from now on, every page SusunW creates will automatically be marked as 'patrolled'. This saves a lot of time. DS (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it feels like I got a prize from you @DragonflySixtyseven: and I am very happy if I save other people's time. :) SusunW (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Red links in Carl Nielsen

Thanks very much Susun for the considerable effort you put into covering the red links in the Nielsen article, creating several biographies and a piece on the Carl Nielsen Edition. All very well researched and based on sensible use of machine translation. As far as I can see, there are very few translation errors. It just shows what can be done when someone really tries to get the utmost out of translation tools.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Good luck on the FA. SusunW (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to say the same thing! Thank you! - Sorry for being brief, - back from a few days off and just catching up. - It's an extra pleasure to see a QAI member praised ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Working on DYK for the more elaborate people, - even the others deserve an ibox ;) - can't believe that there's a Carl Nielsen Prize but no article, not even in Danish, only a cat, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

9 June 2015

Carl Nielsen made

Main Page history

and you were part of

working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vilhelm Andersen

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see this made it on Nielsen's anniversary.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: amazing how we got so many articles completed because of your desire to take Nielsen to FA and how many of them were successfully promoted by @Gerda Arendt: to DYK. It is wonderful how when we all work together, things improve. As someone once said...it takes a village. Proud to be in y'all's company. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you did more than most on those red links and wrote articles far above stub or even start standard. BTW, who was the national composer of Mexico? Carlos Chávez perhaps? Someone you could get your teeth into (to coin a phrase) one of these days perhaps. But now I'm working on Jean Sibelius, 150th anniversary on 8 December, so still plenty of time.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Valdemar Tofte

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bence

Wow, terrific effort on the Bence article! Lots of red links to clear, but I think at some stage I'll try to get it up to GA status. I could still create all those red links in the Schiller article but for films I prefer to work by director rather than by actor/actress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks! Glad to have her done. That was brutal. Near the end, I wasn't sure what language I was working in. LOL Working by director makes sense, but I guess that would depend on whether you were trying to get a specific performer to good or featured article status, though. Anyway, I am just glad she is done. Amazing what we could accomplish if more articles on Spanish wiki were sourced. Looking for sourcing takes so much time and so many of them have zero citations.SusunW (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you do Carlos Irigoyen Ruiz?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Sure. May not get to it today, but I'll mark it as taken. My goal for the day was to do Zully Moreno and finish the last 3 municipalities of the central division SusunW (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: definitely gonna be a hard one. He is from the smallest country in Central America. Most everything I find on the web about Marimba is about Guatemala or Mexico, not El Salvador. The only references cited are from his daughter and granddaughter. BUT, I'm working on it. May take a while. SusunW (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Request on Template: Same-sex Unions.

Please set the request back to "no" and I'll make the change.Naraht (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: I have no idea how to do that. Writing on Wikipedia I can do. All the technical mumbo-jumbo is way above my skill. I wish they would take the code part out of writing, but that is I fear, a futile request. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The last section (created by your request) includes the following line:

{{edit semi-protected|Template:Same-sex unions|answered=y}}

edit that, change the answered=y to answered=n

and save.Naraht (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: Totally weird, I did not put that semi-protected thingy on there. Or if I did, I didn't do it intentionally, as OBVIOUSLY, I have no idea what it even is. Let me see if I can fix it. SusunW (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did put it there, I thought you did so.Naraht (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)