User talk:SusunW/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Template update?

Should Template:LGBT in Mexico be updated to include Chihuahua?Naraht (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I even understand that template. Anyone can marry anywhere in Mexico. The deal is that in DF (Mexico City), Coahuila, Quintana Roo, and now Chihuahua, they can just go to the registry and get married. In all other states in Mexico, they can marry, but they must get a judge to give them an injunction to marry. So what is that template saying? One cannot just marry in Oaxaca without an injunction. So if Oaxaca is listed, every other state must be listed. If it is listing only states where no injunction is required, then only those 3 + DF should be there. SusunW (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: I failed to ping you above. But, please see that comment. I think Oaxaca needs to go, otherwise you need to list all the states of Mexico. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It represents the ones that have articles. Since you have created an article on Chihuahua, I think it should be put there as well. But I agree that this for Mexico doesn't align with the way that the template for USA does it.Naraht (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: yes, Wiki English seems to be very US-centric. Because the situation in Mexico is so different and because primarily I have been the editor of the page, I decided that until marriage without an injunction was approved, I would not break out the articles. Others have not always followed that, so Oaxaca has a page. On the other hand, Coahuila, which does allow marriage, does not. Maybe I should do one for Coahuila. I'll put it on my list.

We just don't have many Mexican editors, or others familiar with Mexican jurisprudence, to create these articles. They'd be welcome if you do. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: yes, most of the Mexican editors are on the Spanish page, but it has no sourcing, which IMO is bad precedent. I actually work LGBT rights in the Caribbean, though I live in Mexico, but because it and Latin America always seem thrown together in world reports and conferences, I had to learn about Mexican rulings. @LuLuDrops: has been a big help on the main page. I am assuming it was you who fixed the map. Thanks! I did break out both Coahuila (finally) and Chihuahua. Still waiting on that Yucatan decision and what Colima is going to do to fix their "separate but equal" mess. SusunW (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As for your comments at the top of this thread, I always thought that marriage was not open in most Mexican states, and also that you cannot go to the next state over to get married, but have to be a resident. Is that correct? And is getting an injunction a quick, easy process, so that it's not a major obstacle to getting married, or do you need a court case that could drag on for months, as in the US? If you do apply for an injunction, are you guaranteed to get one? If getting married in the non-blue Mexican states takes the planning and effort of a honeymoon, then I'd agree that the current coloration is misleading. But I remember the couple from Guerrero who got married in Mexico because it was too difficult to do it in Guerrero. To me that sounds like the situation in the US, where people cross state borders to get married (though it's more difficult to do that in MX). — kwami (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I am going to go out on a limb here and say it is easier in Mexico. BUT, it takes more time, though you are assured of the outcome. The registry has to deny you. It then has to go to a state judge, who can sit on it for however long they do. (in the case of the state of Mexico (Edomex) that was about 4 years). Then when they give a decision, if it is unfavorable, you can appeal to the SCJN, or if it is favorable, the registry can appeal. But to my knowledge, the SCJN has not ever not granted an injunction--they have all been approved. So the question is do you want to wait and set precedent or not? IMO it's crazy, as no heterosexual would have to wait to marry. Marriage here is not a religious process, it is totally a civil process, so it comes down to state law definitions. As for being a resident, I don't think that is an issue. First couple who married in Coahuila were from out of state. SusunW (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Also, since they passed the legislation last year effective throughout Mexico, for non-discrimination on the basis of orientation, you have an advocate in the Equal Opportunity Advocate, who can put pressure on the system if it is "frozen". I do think that is actually what finally happened in Edomex. SusunW (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think with the wait times that we can't present the Mexican situation as anything close to free and open in the non-blue states, so the current coloration is probably appropriate. BTW, keep your eyes on Nepal. Soon the first country in Asia? — kwami (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Totally agree. My point was that Oaxaca was in the approved area of the template, which if it is shown as approved marriage place, then every place else should be shown like that. Anyway, someone fixed it, because Oaxaca is not showing anymore in that template. Nepal's been a long time coming. Been in the deep freezer a while --- they started discussing it long before Pakistan or India discussed third gender recognition and certainly long before conversation even began in Japan. Fingers crossed. Should also have a ruling this month out of the Caribbean Court of Justice on the travel ban. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Travel ban? Haven't been following. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Maurice Tomlinson Jamaican lawyer, was allowed to sue in CCJ because Jamaica would not protest that he was banned from entry into Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. SusunW (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I found it in the news. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Same-sex marriage in Chihuahua

Thank you for creating this article. I added it to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which tracks new LGBT-related content created during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve the LGBT-related articles this month, feel free to update the Result page accordingly. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I also did a page on Same-sex marriage in Coahuila because apparently it hadn't been done. Keep an eye on Maurice Tomlinson, his decision is due from the Caribbean Court of Justice this month, I think. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cases by state/province on subjects like this are to be encouraged everywhere. Coffee production by Brazilian state with specific case studies on each would be good for instance! Epic work BTW on the Argentine actresses, I will plough through those red links soon enough. The problem is that for film I think it's best done by director to make everything consistent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I will eventually break out all the states, but since there are only two of us that regularly monitor the 31 states, it is easier to have them all in one article until the legislation has passed for full legalization. As it stands now, most all of the states have partial judicial precedent, but since each state requires 5 judgments in each state and it is an active situation, one article seems to work best for the time being, so I don't have to monitor 30+ articles. And thanks. Am working my way through the Argentines ;) SusunW (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have a table of the Mexican States and their Amparo counts? (or even a map based on that?)Naraht (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: hard question to answer. I doubt seriously that we have an accurate count of the amparos that have been issued. Some states print them in the paper, others don't. I follow Alex Ali Mendez on Facebook to try to learn where he has filed, etc. But even if he says there is a case, (look at Tabasco), we may not find an article. Some states count the collective amparos as individual judgments and some count them as a single judgment. We tried to make the map show where we have definite evidence that 5 or more separate injunctions (regardless of whether they were single or collective) have been issued, but for some reason that version doesn't flow to all pages. See the one on Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The map is flowing to all pages, the issue is that the page with the map on it may need to be WP:Purged. Do you have an estimate when all states will reach 5 (or the equivalent) bringing full Marriage Equality to Mexico?Naraht (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: In my lifetime? No seriously, I have no idea. Over the last 2 years there have been cases and rulings in all but I think 3 states, I'm totally guessing, but looking at how quickly rulings have come and how much faster they will happen if they do not have to be denied and overturned by the SCJN I'd say within 3-5 years. May be less, but will want to see what impact this recent ruling has on Yucatán, Oaxaca and Colima. IF an impact is going to happen from this latest ruling, it should be there first and if nothing happens there, I would think the impact would be negligible. SusunW (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well and then there is the NYTimes saying it is essentially done. :) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/americas/with-little-fanfare-mexican-supreme-court-effectively-legalizes-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 Naraht (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: Yes, I've read that and can only say that since this ruling did not change the laws in any state, they are mistaken. Each state constitution still says SSM is illegal. The civil registrars are bound to follow the constitution. Thus, someone applies, and the registrar denies them. They file for an amparo (injunction), pay money, and wait. The only part of the process that apparently changed happens now, a judge must approve their request. (Before, the judge could deny and then the couple would appeal to the SCJN, who to my knowledge always approved the request.) Then they can marry when the registrar then receives word of the judgment, has all the other documents they think they want, and schedules a date. This process can be quick, or it can be long, it can be with minimal hassle or full of obstacles. In some cases, application to marriage has been under a year, in the case of Edomex, the delays lasted 4 years. Every state has had proposals to change the laws before them virtually since 2006. Only 1 state, Coahuilla has actually done so (Quinanta Roo never had a law banning to begin with). So, does this sound to you like they are done? Doesn't to me, nor does it to any of my Mexican friends and neighbors. SusunW (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: As I am reading the Mexican press this morning, I see skepticism and caution. Out of Durango, "There is no time limit on how quickly we must change the laws. We need to evaluate." Out of Chiapas just because the supreme court came in favor of same-sex marriages, that does not mean that change happens in the state, because legal issues must be harmonized and people will have to follow formalities. In Querétaro we are waiting on the decision of the fifth amparo, we have four. (We look progressive, but we are stalling. Nothing requires them to wait for 5 decisions.) As I said, there are many ways to drag this process out. I hope I am wrong. I hope it happens quickly, but I think it will not be as quick and easy as the English-speaking press is trying to make it sound. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Esther Seligson

Hello! Your submission of Esther Seligson 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) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nelly Omar

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Holger Gilbert-Jespersen

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Esther Seligson

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Pauline Tennant

Started this, I think you'll find it fascinating, reading this should capture your interest! you may wish to expand!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: oh I do! My kinda woman. A bit of a rebel. I am going to lose internet in about 30 minutes as I just lost power. Have has no water or internet all day. They literally just got the internet on and the power went out. My back up battery is going to last only long enough for me to check in with my mom and siblings, read my messages and answer a few. Hopefully tomorrow will be a much better day. Suffice it to say that this was truly an insufferable Monday. SusunW (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you questioned the notability of Laura. Honestly, it's the same with most socialites, they're known for being the wives of barons and for appearing at events, little else. They become notable because of their position in society and the number of mentions in different sources I think. A Spencer-Churchill is usually notable! Great job anyway! Now I'm note sure if Anne the poetess is notable, you might find something though! If not just delink it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the clarification. I truly spent hours and hours and hours looking. Next time, I will just document the marriages and move on. Ironically, I guess I am a snob. I'd rather have weightiness than marshmallows any day. Last week I found the first lawyer in Nicaragua who happened to be a woman and the first female engineer in Central America, their articles are screaming at me. I'll work on Anne but then I'm doing an engineer. SusunW (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr Blofeld: I analyzed the possibilities. The dinner at The Ritz Hotel, London#High society occurred on 4 August 1914:

• George Capell, 7th Earl of Essex (died 1916) his wife at the time was Adele Grant (American socialite)
• Algernon George de Vere Capell, 8th Earl of Essex (died 1966) wife in 1914 was Mary Evaline Steward Freeman.
• Reginald Capell, 9th Earl of Essex born 1906 not likely to be married and partying at the Ritz in 1914.
• Anne Kerr, Lady Kerr (born 1914) not likely to be married and partying at the Ritz in 1914.
• Anne Kerr, poetess. She was from Longridge Westlothian, Scotland, UK and writing poems circa 2003. poems I find no American poetess named Anne Kerr, but as you know, I don't always have access to the same web materials that people in other placed do.

My analysis is that the source got the name wrong and I think it is likely that it was Adele Capell who was dining. The Earl at the time was the 7th. I checked the 8th and 9th just to be sure that they didn't append a later title, but neither of them were ever married to an American per both Wiki and The Peerage. I looked at Lady Kerr, just to rule her out, she wasn't old enough and was Australian. The only poetess I can find is Scottish. Thus, I changed the reference on the Ritz page to point to Adele Cappell neé Grant. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cristofi Cerchez

Hello! Your submission of Cristofi Cerchez 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) 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alexandru Săvulescu (architect)

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Independence of Panama from Spain

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Independence Act of Panama

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Guerrero

I see, when I translated the source that I was given from another Wikipedia user it made it appear as though it would be executive action allowing statewide same-sex marriage (similar to what happened in Chihuahua). The legislative change was going to presented as a codification of what the Supreme Court of Mexico had ruled a few days ago. However, given that you are more versed on the Mexican legal system; I'll defer to your good judgement. Chase1493 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chase1493: I have worked in the Mexican and Caribbean for the last 5 years. Guerrero is not on my radar as one that is likely to quickly happen. If it does, I will be pleasantly surprised, but there has been virtually no activism there and no push to obtain amparos. SusunW (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that is disappointing. Bar Guerrero, what states do you think will change their laws soon? Also, I know that the Mexican Supreme Court doesn't override state law, but merely creates a legal guide to how all other judges must rule. Do these changes all require legislative reform of the civil code, or can a "progressive" executive announce that it will allow it statewide? (Similar to what the Government of West Virginia decided to do after the fourth circuit ruled and Supreme Court denied review). Chase1493 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chase1493: There's a pretty lengthy discussion of what I think of the situation on the talk page of recognition. Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico The question of a "progressive" executive may be answered in Chihuahua but not sure. The governor announced there that they will change the law and accept registrations, but the legislature and Catholic Bishop so far have said they won't. Remains to be seen if marriages start happening. Colima and Yucatan have the longest challenges out there and both have over 5 amparos. I look for them to happen quicker than some, but some have been less contentious, so you could have Querétaro or Tamaulipas go first. Guerrero, Tlaxcala and Zacatecas have had no push, I expect them to be near last, but they could surprise me. SusunW (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Guatemalan women

You can add an extra column and add Olga Violeta, María del Pilar de Garci and Magdalena Spínola to the list if you want to over the next day or two until the new batch comes in for next month ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I've got keyed up 10 women from the Guatemalan conference, and another 20 municipalities in groups of 10. But, I was kinda holding off on posting any of those until we actually are in a new month. I'd told Rosie I'd look at 2 of the Guatemalan women if I finished the Argentine actresses, so I'm way overdue and that was a great piece I found on Acuña's early writings and feminist viewpoint. If I can get to them, I'll add them. ;) SusunW (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you can add those on July 1 when we archive. If you feel like doing one or two more of any of the existing columns like Guatemalan women or municipalities you can just add an extra column and do more, whatever you're happy with!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Oluf Hartmann

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cristofi Cerchez

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ana Rosa Tornero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paz. 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) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I've seen you create lots of new articles and DYKs, and assumed you'd been around for years. A pleasant surprise to see you've been on less than a year, but have still made substantial contributions. Keep it up! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wow, thank you. Definitely not been around for years. Definitely still a newbie. I only wish I understood how the machine of wikipedia works. In my perfect world, I wouldn't have to know diddly about the code that makes the system work, I could just research and write. Thank goodness for amazing mentors who have helped me sort out the intimidating technical details. As someone once said, it takes a village ... SusunW (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, much deserved, the idiots here should take a leaf out of Susun's book! Susun, can you start Brook House red linked in Park Lane, London? Ritchie and myself are taking it to GA soon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Let me finish my Nicaraguan woman and I'll get on it. It is this guy's house, correct? Ernest Cassel

@Ritchie333: and @Dr. Blofeld: quite satisfactory start, nearly 4000 characters. I didn't do coordinates, or categories, or photographs and my husband is hankering for dinner. Brook House (Park Lane) has quite an interesting history. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed quite satisfactory. Excellent job Susun!♦ Dr. Blofeld 04:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Old White Horse Cellar

Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Francisca Fernández Hall

If this is the article you wanted me to read, I must say it is not as clearly worded as it could be. My interpretation is that she was the first women to graduate from the re-established USAC, and that she was the first women to graduate successfully in mathematics in Central America. As far as I can see, she was only accepted as an engineering student at USAC after writing a thesis. But she then went on to study engineering in Brazil. However, this summary definitely states she was the first woman to graduate in engineering from USAC. Let me know if you want me to research it further.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you! I will add the source and see what he thinks. I am about to be at the point of never submitting another DYK. It isn't that the rules don't have value, but I truly am exhausted by the inability to see beyond the finite and to understand that there is not a perfect translation for an imperfectly crafted original document. Look at weight of the documentation and what is there backs it up. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Please don't give up on DYK. You've been doing a fantastic job and you should keep at it. I must say I have not been a model to follow for DYKs, GAs or FAs, but I have always appreciated the efforts of others like you. If you want, I could look into Francisca in more detail tomorrow if you think it is worthwhile following up on. Here in Denmark it's been uncommonly hot which is why I have not been too active over the past few days.--Ipigott (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: If you would like and if it will not put your health in jeopardy, I would love your input, as you always add valuable insight. He is either going to approve it or not, and truly there isn't much I can do to convince him that the weight of all of the documentation together is convincing. He did like your source, said it supported my alt hook, but hasn't approved it. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well here's one more although I have only been able to pick it up from the Google cache.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This one looks even better. And this from the USAC itself.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally, I've just found this reference in a book. I don't think it's really worthwhile looking for more. It's quite clear she was indeed the first woman to graduate in engineering.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: You are wonderful! Thank you! SusunW (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your DYK submission seems to be stuck. Why not clarify the hook and provide some of the additional references in support?--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I figured to wait until Monday. Due to the holiday in the states, I thought he might be taking a long weekend. I put the sources into the article and he will see them because he is checking everything. But, if by 10 a.m. tomorrow I haven't heard something, I will ask and include more links on DYK. SusunW (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I am the mouse in this game with the cat. Apparently one comment a day = working on it? SusunW (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Diane Bond

Hi, can you expand this? More in the source given. She later become a feminist writer I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Of course, but I'd do it for you no matter, unless maybe she were an axe murderer. ;) SusunW (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha! I do remember Diane actually in In Like Flint, I think she was one of the girls at the clinic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Well, now I start on the "interesting part". She went to art school in Milan and began a project "DOLLS ON THE ROAD" not sure what it's about yet, but surely it is a play on the film House of 1000 Dolls. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: She created the concept of "Flat Stanley"! Way before he did it. In the 1970s she made cutout paperdolls of women who traveled all over with the person they were modeled after. But how the heck do I cover that? I can find no article about it, only the photographic images on her website. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to source that to images on her site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Like SusunW (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I sourced a director quote about Claudia Cardinale earlier to Pinterest! BTW, this is turning into a monster Template:Did you know nominations/Municipalities of Yucatan! I've proposed a revision to the rules in having to match the reviews for every article nominated if it's over five in one hook at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Okay, she is out of stub status and I think a fairly decent "start" class. I am at my wits end with DYK and about ready to throw in the towel with it all together. Lately there seems to be no end of people re-reviewing things and suspending them after they are approved, changing hooks because they don't like them (not because the information isn't proven), making erroneous requests to add in citations for every single sentence in an article even if the source did not change, etc. It is crazy. My Francisca Fernandez Hall article has been stuck there for over a week by a reviewer who keeps saying he will approve it, but ... I can help you do reviews, but my guess is someone will suspend them afterwards. I encouraged a newbie to submit a DKY, it was approved and then someone decided the hook should be changed, new sources added, and suspended it. I approved one of your's and Rosie's and someone came after deciding the hook was too redundant and needed to change. I could go on and on, but truly, it is not worth it to me. The tyrants are beginning to run the asylum and I just do not participate in uncivil petty-nonsense behavior. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I didn't bother with DYK for 18 months or so! There should be a mutual helping environment on here but certain people spoil it for others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Okay, I did two DYK reviews, both of which appear to have issues. I'll look at some more tomorrow. I seem to recall that 2 of the Municipalities articles were not at 1500 characters so I hadn't bolded them. But I don't remember which 2. SusunW (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to do a couple each day to cover it. It would be great to have all of those on the main page. I still think the rules need to change and nominators shouldn't have to reviewer more than five! Just getting Claudia Cardinale to GA, I might actually look at one of the Argie ones you expanded next. Amelia Bence in particular. That would be some achievement to get her to GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I hear you, but you apparently get no bonuses around here for creating articles. The focus seems to be on deletion, tagging, and bickering. There seems to be a high number of people who like telling other people what to do instead of actually creating content themselves. I just try to steer clear of it all and keep writing, thus why I am quickly getting to the point of writing off DKY. Searching for articles to review today, I saw no less than 10 that were approved and then someone suspended them. Bence was interesting, Tita moreso. I like those rebellish kinda gals. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diane Bond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Douglas. 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) 08:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Orlanda Velez Isidro

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Godavari Pushkaram

FYI, please see note on your DYK review. The article is a mess, English grammarwise, and it needs a translation/explanation for that term "Mara Pushkaram" which appears in the hook. It also appears to be a content fork of Pushkaram. It was promoted to prep for the July 14 special occasion request date, but was pulled due to these problems. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Juana Belén Gutiérrez de Mendoza.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Juana Belén Gutiérrez de Mendoza.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)