User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 54
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rosiestep. 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. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Merge? Douglass High School (Oklahoma City)
Working on a file about an early clubwoman in Oklahoma and I ran across references to the Douglass High School (Oklahoma City). Added a bunch of information to the stub and then when I searched to see if an article had been created for Frederick Douglass Moon (it hadn't), I discovered this Frederick A. Douglass High School, clearly the same school. I can never remember how to merge things, so can you fix this? Whichever one it goes to, there needs to be a redirect left. Douglass High School is the common name. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW, working on it... --Rosiestep (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW, and the merge is done now. Loved reading the article you created; such an improvement over the stub! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I am so thankful that you know how to do this. SusunW (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Request.
Hello. This site is Pitachu, and I'd like permission to publish the latest version of the site Ásta Kristjana Sveinsdóttir For the Polish version of Wikipedia. Due to the fact that you have recently edited the page (I only changed the link), I am asking for your permission. Will I get such a permit?
Regards, Pitachu. Pitachu (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Pitachu and thanks for reaching out to me. I am happy to hear that you want to translate an article from English Wikipedia into Polish Wikipedia. Perhaps you were unaware, but no one holds the copyright on any Wikipedia article, so you don't need anyone's permission to do the translation. However, if you do a translation, you are required to provide appropriate attribution in the Polish Wikipedia. This (Wikipedia:Translation) may be helpful. P.S. Regarding the Sveinsdóttir article, I only added a category. Best wishes, --Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
November edith-a-thons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
October harvest
 |
beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing, Gerda Arendt. The main page article is indeed of a beautiful painting, and those are lovely operatic voices. I could follow the English part of the interviews, of course. Blocked user? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lead image DYK (showing a woman in a play by a woman in a costume by a woman) was taken by a productive theatre photographer who is blocked for socking (on the English Wikipedia, not the Commons). - There was also a woman among the Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aha. Thanks for explaining, Gerda Arendt. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lead image DYK (showing a woman in a play by a woman in a costume by a woman) was taken by a productive theatre photographer who is blocked for socking (on the English Wikipedia, not the Commons). - There was also a woman among the Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Civility Help from Admin
Hi Rosiestep,
I was trying to get help with incivility on the talk page Template_talk:Infobox_UK_university_rankings
As you are an admin, I was trying to get your help with a talk page Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings that has become uncivil. I was trying to help as well with this in a way that would not cause drama such as an ANI.
The talk page has had Wikipedia:Civility:
Direct rudeness
(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
Other Indirect Rudeness
(a) harassment, online bullying
(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say
The incivility has risen to the level of disruption. I have done my best to bring the discourse to be civil, but clearly that is not wanted, such as and editor or group of editors is possibly trying for page ownership to be the decider of the page. I was seeking admin help on this matter in a friendly way before bringing up an incident on the ANI boards. I saw your name on the recently active page of the ANI boards. I have tried leaving several Wikipedia:Civility warnings to ask nicely to be respectful please, using quoted text directly from the civility warning without menitioning any civility warnings such that it would appear friendly. These edits asking for civility were all reverted. I thought you would be a good admin to ask for help fixing incivility. There was so much disruption that they are discussing users, rather than content, and are not open to any content changes, so there is no point of even responding to the other editor to make for a better encyclopedia because they are not open to others opinions on this.
Thank you for your guidance, Music23123 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I realize you only briefly skimmed the article talk page, at most, to deal with formatting issues...
...but I was wondering if you could take a look at the article itself, and give an opinion as to whether it is actually a good article? Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for connecting with me, Qwirkle, regarding the biography on Elizabeth Alexander (scientist). WP:WikiProject Women in Green has the expertise to answer this question, so pinging one of its members, SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Qwirkle Without doing an in-depth analysis, and without a request for a GA reassessment, I think it is not GA quality. But, that is my personal opinion, and I have not evaluated it. Reading the talk page comments which bring up multiple issues after it was assessed and skimming the article, noting the number of uncited statements, and what to my eye is a fairly broad glossing over of her career without giving much meat. I mean what exactly did "published a number of geological papers between 1951 and 1957, derived from her PhD, along with some derived from her work as a soil scientist in Nigeria. In 1958 Alexander wrote a report on tropical weathering in Singapore, which was published posthumously" these papers analyze. How useful was the work, what was its impact on later geologists? I do not have time to do a more thorough analysis at the present time, as I am in the midst of a major article. I am unsure of the point of your query. If you want to delist it, you need to request that at WP:GA. If your concern is more what to do to improve it to GA status, yes, Women in Green is who to contact for help. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Me, I’d say “both”. The article is bad enough that it should never have passed GA; that it did is proof of the corrosive effects of tendentious editfests. Now that there is a full biography published, its status is even lower, IMS, since GAs should include that sort of thing.
That said, she was a major figure in several areas of science and technology -radio, radar, meteorology, geology, and agronomy- and an accomplished academic -in the bureaucratic sense- as well. So, yeah, an article is called for, and a better one than this. Qwirkle (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Me, I’d say “both”. The article is bad enough that it should never have passed GA; that it did is proof of the corrosive effects of tendentious editfests. Now that there is a full biography published, its status is even lower, IMS, since GAs should include that sort of thing.
- Qwirkle Without doing an in-depth analysis, and without a request for a GA reassessment, I think it is not GA quality. But, that is my personal opinion, and I have not evaluated it. Reading the talk page comments which bring up multiple issues after it was assessed and skimming the article, noting the number of uncited statements, and what to my eye is a fairly broad glossing over of her career without giving much meat. I mean what exactly did "published a number of geological papers between 1951 and 1957, derived from her PhD, along with some derived from her work as a soil scientist in Nigeria. In 1958 Alexander wrote a report on tropical weathering in Singapore, which was published posthumously" these papers analyze. How useful was the work, what was its impact on later geologists? I do not have time to do a more thorough analysis at the present time, as I am in the midst of a major article. I am unsure of the point of your query. If you want to delist it, you need to request that at WP:GA. If your concern is more what to do to improve it to GA status, yes, Women in Green is who to contact for help. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy note
I've quoted you, but not attributed the quote to your name, at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Advert_/_message_to_any_potential_new_Crat. I thought this was the most courteous thing to do. If you'd like me to mention your name, just ask. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, Dweller. What I meant by time commitment is this: if you get a new hat... (a) You need to spend time learning how to do the actions associated with the position. (b) From time to time, a crat should actually "do" something associated with the position, e.g. take action; and (c) be able to explain it. (d) Also, I suppose, crats have some sort of private channel where they communicate, (e) in addition to communicating on-wiki. All of this takes time, though I don't know how much. Maybe there's an estimate somewhere? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Talkpage stalker butting in, no we don't have a private channel, yes we do have the ability to set the admin and crat flags among other things and the expectation is that we use them occasionally, on average these days perhaps a couple of times a year. Once or twice a year there is an RFA so close that we have a crat chat to determine consensus, and the expectation is that when that happens any Crats who are active and don't have to recuse take part in the crat chat, and that can take a few hours to read the whole RFA, the crat chat and its talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, WereSpielChequers. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Talkpage stalker butting in, no we don't have a private channel, yes we do have the ability to set the admin and crat flags among other things and the expectation is that we use them occasionally, on average these days perhaps a couple of times a year. Once or twice a year there is an RFA so close that we have a crat chat to determine consensus, and the expectation is that when that happens any Crats who are active and don't have to recuse take part in the crat chat, and that can take a few hours to read the whole RFA, the crat chat and its talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with WereSpielChequers. There's no time "commitment" at all, but if you passed RfB we'd be keen for you to give us a few hours a couple of times a year when there's a Cratchat. Of course, if you wanted to give more time than that, there are discussions at BN and with the bots etc, but there's very little workload per se. The need is for more trusted opinions, not workers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
December with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women who died in 2020
 |
Thank you for a good program, - last month with the stage designers was funny, because I had written about 2 just before. Same for those who died, too many. Perhaps those in November next years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I'm glad you like the programming. You are right that there are too many. The 2020 deaths event runs for 61 days (1 Dec 2020 - 31 Jan 2021) but for 2021, maybe we can add another 30 days by starting earlier, e.g. 1 Nov; if you're inclined, please suggest here. A friendly FYI: for 2019 deaths, we created 142 biographies -pretty good, I think- though maybe this year, we can write even more. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I wrote 18 of those, and one was a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to learn that you lost your friend, Gerda Arendt. And thank you for writing all of those biographies. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I may have told you when it happened, and not a funeral for hundreds as for her husband who leads the sad list, - I created their article when he died in 2011, and I still smile when I read the DYK. Her announcement - with art, of course - is still on my talk, - I get radical with a new year ;) - To see a her, google "Können Frauen denken?" (Can women think?) (too much porn: [1] [2]) The photo also appeared on the cover of EMMA. "Most of the women who died this year, I could just polish to appear in "Recent deaths". Three were new, vs. seven men. Looking now reminded me that I wanted to create a film, for an actress who died, several compositions got articles because their authors died, Penderecki even two. - Talking about the missed: Jerome Kohl, and nobody yet wrote the article. Did you know that Penderecki has no infobox in memory of him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I love the photo with the apples. It is striking. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! - In the meantime, #19 Hella Brock, at age 101. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nicely done, Gerda Arendt. I added the WP:WPWW talkpage template. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sadly next, Jutta Lampe, and as it happens the 300th woman I deal with since WIR began - I never counted those before. What an actress!! (... and I only saw her in film, - read the enthusiastic descriptions who remember particular moments after decades) - Someone even added a pic overnight. GRuban, do you also think that should be cropped a bit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nicely done, Gerda Arendt. I added the WP:WPWW talkpage template. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! - In the meantime, #19 Hella Brock, at age 101. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I love the photo with the apples. It is striking. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I may have told you when it happened, and not a funeral for hundreds as for her husband who leads the sad list, - I created their article when he died in 2011, and I still smile when I read the DYK. Her announcement - with art, of course - is still on my talk, - I get radical with a new year ;) - To see a her, google "Können Frauen denken?" (Can women think?) (too much porn: [1] [2]) The photo also appeared on the cover of EMMA. "Most of the women who died this year, I could just polish to appear in "Recent deaths". Three were new, vs. seven men. Looking now reminded me that I wanted to create a film, for an actress who died, several compositions got articles because their authors died, Penderecki even two. - Talking about the missed: Jerome Kohl, and nobody yet wrote the article. Did you know that Penderecki has no infobox in memory of him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to learn that you lost your friend, Gerda Arendt. And thank you for writing all of those biographies. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I wrote 18 of those, and one was a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Looks like User:Joofjoof did so today! --GRuban (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the milestone, Gerda Arendt, and thanks for your comment, too, GRuban. This year more than others, all the deaths are hitting me hard. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Joofjoof did so today! --GRuban (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! There is a last sentence in this article you have edited which says "Jacobsen died" and I am at a loss here trying to figure out did you mean that Poutasuo died then or what. Iivarius (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Iivarius. Clueless how I made it, but thanks for catching my mistake! I have fixed it. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
Have a very happy birthday on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
note re conference today
hi Rosiestep. thanks so much for moderating the great session at Wikimedia conference today. it was really great to finally meet you. I am writing because i think you have a crucial role to play in the coming process. the only way that al these ideas can succeed is if they have a solid foundation in the current resources, communities, and project pages of actual editors. any other idea, no matter how well-meant, will have major problems.
for editors like you and me, we joined the conference call, so we have specific detailed awareness of what is being planned. however, most of the editing community does not. therefore any ideas presented, no matter how well-meant, will seem rather arbitrary and dismissive to the large majority of editors here. and we know they can be fractious.
you occupy a unique role, because you are currently running a highly vibrant, truly active editing project. as such you are able to provide an example for something that currently genuinely works, and provide some helpful practical input on what new structures might have a chance of succeeding.
I urge you to stay deeply involved. you can provide crucial leadership to help some of these new proposals to have some actual substance, and have a chance of succeeding.,
I would like to remain in contact with you, and to have an active in helping with, or participating in discussions as this process goes forward; please feel free to keep me posted. please feel free to let me know of further events or processes, and let me know if I can help with new ideas, or just help by participating. thanks again for running the session today. we all need youi to be involved. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for participating in today's movement strategy "Global Conversations" conference, Sm8900, and for your kind words. It was great to meet you. I've been involved with the movement strategy process since 2016, and am glad to learn that you are intersted in it, too. For sure, let's stay in touch! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- terrific. thanks so much!
- some ideas; do you feel like maybe we should form some sort of ongoing communication method? such as an online email group, or maybe a whatsapp thread?
- my thought is that as these WMF ideas gain traction, perhaps some folks who are in the editing community and who can keep a dialogue open with WMF might be needed.
- I feel that you might be one of the only Wikipedia people able to bridge both worlds. not every editor has a major, active wikiproject to enable them to view the true nature of editor dynamics, and to offer options for editors to do groups proceses such as those suggested by WMF, and to offer WMF some real options for finding organizers within the editing community.
- it is just an idea for now, but feel free to let me know. I was thinking that perhaps a WhatsApp group might be useful, if we wish to have an ongoing method of communication in writing. let me know whatever might work best or be preferable to you. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sm8900, I think people in the editing community like to communicate on Wikipedia pages. Mostly, they don't want to hop over to Meta or join a Telegram channel. I was really heartened to see @Mehrdad reach out to the Women in Red talkpage regarding movement strategy global conversations. More of that, please! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- ok, that makes sense. I will keep that in mind. and thanks for letting me know about that message from the WMF individual. that sounds interesting. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Rosiestep, Sm8900, thank you so much for your active participation in the global conversations. It's so valuable to have your input on how to shape implementation forward. We are keen and committed to keep the conversations going, to expand the circles, and include more people as we gain momentum, especially as the topics become more focused and more relevant. We'll now process all the input and make available both summaries and the raw data for participants and enthusiasts. We'll also communicate clear next steps, including different options to keep the conversations going, on and off-wiki depending on people's preferences. It's always wonderful and ever so crucial to have Women in Red editing community as part of the implementation discussions. More to come. Thanks again for everything. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- ok, that makes sense. I will keep that in mind. and thanks for letting me know about that message from the WMF individual. that sounds interesting. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sm8900, I think people in the editing community like to communicate on Wikipedia pages. Mostly, they don't want to hop over to Meta or join a Telegram channel. I was really heartened to see @Mehrdad reach out to the Women in Red talkpage regarding movement strategy global conversations. More of that, please! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I hesitate to query an edit by such a distinguished editor but why did you add an Awards and Honours section when the material presented appeared in the previous paragraphs? Thanks. Roundtheworld (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's a great question, Roundtheworld!! It's common to include an 'Awards' (or 'Awards and honors') section in women writer biographies (men's, too, but I'm not reviewing those; I'm only reviewing the ones associated with WP:WPWW). Sometimes it is a summation from the prose section; other times, it is the only place where an editor has included this information. Its main purpose is how it serves the reader who may not feel inclined to read all the way through an article to see if Jane Doe received any awards. The same is true for a section on 'Publications' (also known as 'Selected works'). The works may or may not be discussed in the body of the biography, so enumerating them in a separate section is reader-helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. But in that case it seems sensible to me to delete the previous sections rather than just duplicate? Roundtheworld (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh no! IMHO, don't delete. Duplication is perfect here. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. But in that case it seems sensible to me to delete the previous sections rather than just duplicate? Roundtheworld (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Sm8900 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sm8900. I've read it but prefer to respond here. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- okay/ no problem, that's totally fine. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Beethoven 250 years
 | |
| Beethoven in 1803 |
|---|
The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lovely. Thanks for sharing, Gerda Arendt. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas Rosiestep |
|
Hi Rosiestep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
- Thanks, Davey2010! Merry Christmas to you and yours. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
.jpg)
Hello Rosiestep: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, Quviasukvik, the Winter or Summer solstice, Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}
- Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather! Merry Christmas to you and yours. Stay warm up there! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays
 |
Happy Holidays! |
|
Hi Rosiestep, May your holidays be merry and bright, |
- Thanks, Netherzone. Happy Holidays to you and yours! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Hello, Rosiestep! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
- Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. Merry Christmas to you and yours! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
|
| If angels sung a Savior’s birth, On that auspicious morn, We well may imitate their mirth, Now He again is born! If stars in heav'n shone bright as day To light the manger throne, We should rejoice as well as they That love doth reign alone. All Glory be to God on high, And to the earth be peace; Goodwill henceforth from heav'n to men Begin and never cease. - "Milford" by Joseph Stephenson, text anonymous |
--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Merry Christmas to you and yours! Hopefully, I can return to DC next year and we can get together for dinner. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Your efforts seem to have paid off
You'll be pleased to see, Rosie, that coverage of COVID-19 came out as one of the top 10 articles of the year according to this. It's also good to see two women made the grade. I hope you are enjoying a happy, relaxing holiday break and are preparing for another successful year in 2021. I'm looking forward once again to helping with your initiatives as they emerge over the coming months.--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing that link, Ipigott. Your tireless efforts and your words of encouragement are so appreciated. Side-by-side, I'm looking forward with renewed vigor to continuing our work at Women in Red. Happy 2021! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)