Knowledge talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 13

3074:

statement, and refusing to allow details of the allegations in the MM article; after Depp lost his libel case in the UK, editors seem to want to add minutiae on anti-Heard online petitions, or blatant attempts of Depp's team to smear her to the article... I can go on and give more details if you are interested. It also appears that quite a few Wikipedians seem to lose their ability to look at the big picture (e.g. the entire case from start to present day) or to have any basic source criticism when it comes to these articles. It also doesn't seem that many Wikipedians have any basic knowledge of domestic/intimate partner violence (e.g. that mutual abuse is rare but the abuser trying to frame self-defense as such is not; that fake allegations are very, very rare; that it's often difficult to take cases to court; that BDSM and abuse are different things entirely; that abusers can seem to be nice people to outsiders...), although of course this applies to the general population as well. Even in a case where there are multiple accusers making very serious allegations and politicians calling for a FBI investigation (e.g. Manson) or where the accusations have been proven in a civil court (Depp), it seems to be difficult to break through this bias.

1841:, it would be interesting to have similar data on female vs. male biographies that are not BLPs. I was also wondering to what extent biographies of sportswomen could represent a major factor in this analysis as it appears to me that the majority of BLPs are in fact about sports people. It might be interesting to run queries which exclude sports people to see whether they do in fact represent a major influence (and if not whether new BLPs on all the other categories over the years have been improving at higher or lower rates). Although it is probably not at all significant, I have also been wondering what proportion of articles originally written as BLPs are now no longer categorized as such as the individuals they cover have since died. It might be interesting to know how many articles are no longer BLPs but I don't expect it will change the stats.-- 887:

there is no way of identifying gender in the text or in the title. Stuartyeates says that the fact they are in "women-only" categories is sufficient but I do not believe it is because most people use mobile devices to acces WP (I seem to remember a figure of 80% but I can't find that reference) and on my Android I cannot see the categories unless I switch to the desktop version. Also the fact that there are women-only categories seems contentious to me and maybe one day they will be merged. I'll be honest I really don't mind them removing pronouns so long as there is no doubt that the article is about a woman because I believe this is important to closing the gender gap. If this were just a couple of articles it wouldn't really matter but this editor is very very prolific, they have created 170 articles following this meetup

3130:

was added in the first place was because there seemed to be confusion about what type of abuse Wood is talking about. Initially, the name of the section was 'Sexual assaults', even though the allegations that Wood makes include other violence and abuse as well. I do agree that the paragraph is getting long, but if you actually look at the content of it, not a lot of it is on the actual allegations. Hopefully with the current criminal investigation there will be even better grounds for having a long section on this (or even a separate article if there are criminal charges like in the Weinstein and Cosby cases). However, why I am concerned for the article is more because of the content that is being added repeatedly. It is unsourced and seems to have the sole purpose of making Wood seem bad. Thank you for responding!

909:. That matters, because my argument against "gender is irrelevant to their notability" was going to be "yes, but it's very likely quite important to their lives, and these are supposed to be biographies, so leaving that out is like leaving out where they were born, grew up, went to school, married, etc., all things that we put in that likely don't really affect their notability but are presumably quite important to them as people." Unfortunately these articles are so short that they don't say where these women were born, grew up, went to school, etc! So that kind of falls flat. I'd support writing their gender explicitly, but the argument "we should do it for the WikiProject" isn't really policy or guideline. If we can't convince him, I think we'll have to do it. I'll come to his talk page and see if I can help. -- 206:, "Modska", for most of its text. But there is a reason, which is that the source is really writing about his friends, and that was what they called him. That is one of the arguments SchroCat is using to defend the usage of Josephine, that biographies call her by first name. However, despite request, SchroCat isn't giving specific examples of just how those biographies do that, so I suspect it might be context specific, such as when talking about her interactions with her very close friends, or in talking about other people with the same last name. SchroCat, any chance of giving specific examples from the biographies you mention, so we can judge context? It would strengthen your case noticeably. -- 3185:

news articles on that day seem to discuss their allegations jointly, i.e. she was one in a group of people naming MM. Since then 4 or 5 other women have also come out. So some type of mention that this is several women rather than just Wood making these allegations would I think be warranted. I think it could perhaps also be mentioned that at least three public representatives in three different states have also called for an investigation on Manson. However, I anticipate that this case may actually lead to criminal charges and at that stage may warrant its own article, so of course the state representatives' calls for investigation may be best left until that.

1595:. (Please correct me if I have mis-counted -- this does include the rescued as well as the rescuers.) This is despite Sky News having broadcast interviews with the commander of the U.S. contingent who was female, and BBC News having broadcast several segments of footage with female volunteers at the rescue logistics camp. The female volunteers were engaged in activities such as cleaning and cooking. I am certain that there was also footage of mothers, sisters, and female classmates of the trapped persons, but only reactions from male persons are included in the article. The article mentions that over ten thousand persons were involved in the rescue. 891:. This editor has stated that "their gender is irrelevant to their notability and the topic at hand". I totally agree about the notability part but if we remove gender how can we be closing the gap. If it had been anyone that was not part of this project or WIR that had created or editied an article about a woman and had removed all gender identification from the article one could almost imagine that it was a deliberate attempt to thwart closing the gender gap by rendering the articles on women gender-free. I am not suggesting in any way that this editor is a misogynistic mole but I believe their good intentions are backfiring. -- 3070:"innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court" seems to be often thrown around to prevent anything beyond a cursory mention of allegations, despite the fact that criminal convictions in domestic/intimate partner/child abuse cases are relatively rare due to multiple factors, none of which is that fake allegations would be prevalent. The same commitment to 'the truth' that makes editors block almost any mention of abuse allegations does often not go the other way, with almost any material that casts the accuser in a bad light being ok to add apparently. 1790: 1199:

have not held a highest level admin post. All the other criteria need strong sources to show they meet them. I believe flooding WP with articles about non notable women is actually damaging to the idea of closing the gender gap. The aim is not just to have more articles on women but to create the articles about notable women. A good number of your creations will end up getting sent to Afd and because you have identified them as being created following a meetup this will discredit the work done by the members.

35: 2831:: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression may qualify as insults collectively, even if individual statements would not. 710:, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page. 698: 3415: 2376: 762:, which do seem to depend on fame), but the 'Hot 100' is definitely something that's up for discussion right now. Some suggested alterations have included the conscious incorporation of a wider diversity of nationalities and/or occupations into our list of prioritized articles. If you have any thoughts or suggestions about this, please do feel free to add comments to the Women in Green talk page -- all input is useful going forward. 654: 319: 2393:. This is a perennial discussion that never seems to reach consensus. Notice of this round of discussion was sort of spammed to various ship- and military-related projects and pages (i.e., places of strong concentration of fans of using "she" for ships, and of male editors in particular), so I'm notifying some other wikiprojects and such that are apt to have wider views and demographics, for balance. 3016: 861:'s comment on that talk page that to call it "disruptive" is going too far. It seems to be not that far from an editing style quirk; we all have those. "Removing all pronouns" could also be an acceptable solution, actually, as long as the article does clearly tell the subject's gender somewhere, it is still generally considered a rather important detail. Is 2916:

childhood, but their articles do not start with the section titled Mental Health. I am yet to see another article on a well-known person (not a mental health advocate) that begins with the section titled Mental Health. However, if it exists, it doesn't appear objective. Please provide your inputs if you are interested to discuss this in her "talk" page.

202:. I ... umm ... wrote most of it. Ahem. Stein, formerly Aronstam, changed his last name just at the start of his commercial success, which is maybe three quarters through our article. Our article not FA quality of course, partly because much of it is backed by a single source, and I followed that source, which calls him not merely by first name, but by 2221:. Thanks to you and everyone who runs queries and helps up better understand both Knowledge as well as the composition of the people who edit here. I wish I had taken more coursework in quantitative methods but I was an ethnographer and transcribing took precedence over algorithms. Can't wait to hear about your second post, whenever that comes. 3149:. I just checked your edits, and I see you've deleted any mention of Wood naming him as her abuser? Even though that has been widely reported by top media (NYT, LAT, The Guardian, BBC...) and has excellent sources to back it up, in addition to also including Manson's take on the matter? Could you please clarify why? 3129:

Hmmm, are you referring to the part that the fly-by keeps removing? I'd argue that since it comes from her testimonies at the Senate and State hearings, and doesn't directly state Manson's name in that paragraph, there's grounds for keeping it. I've tried to keep it as general as possible, but why it

3069:

case. Why I started doing this was because I noticed that whenever there's a woman who goes public with abuse allegations, the related WP articles seem to not represent the cases in a neutral way, but instead are often biased towards the person that is alleged to have been the abusive party. The line

2263:

We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Knowledge and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $ 15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your

1208:

you will have to admit that it is pretty poor. It is missing all the basic information that one would expect in an article about a notable person DOB early life place of birth etc. The lack of this kind of info shows one of 2 things a: this a quick stub article from an inexperienced or lazy editor or

1023:

Ok. Not convinced but says he won't revert us if we do it. Looks like we have two choices: edit the articles ourselves to put in "she", or make it so he can't make more articles. To me, the choice seems obvious, his contributions are valuable. If no one else will do it, I can take a pronoun-fix pass

423:

The major question is whether there is enough, and good enough, info on her for an article. The outing question is probably second hand outing - if she only outed herself because she was afraid others would soon do it .... Is the info on her good enough? Since she is the only person saying for sure

338:

It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea.

3077:

Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I guess I'm here to seek peer support and advice? Is there any type of Manual of Style for these types of cases? It would be great to discuss these issues with others as I often feel like the only editor trying to fight this bias in these articles, but I know

2792:

which, while it contains language about respecting the diversity of community members and condemning hate speech that appears in vandalism, does not appear to prohibit or otherwise mention racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice outside of vandalism and direct insults (in the English

1198:

are you basing the creation of these articles on? They are almost all identical in structure and most have not received a highly prestigious honour and do not have named chair positions most of those that are fellows are of societies that do not reserve that position as a highly selective honour and

175:

Yes, I can: your behaviour has fallen a long way short of that expected of an administrator. Your attitude of shrugging off valid comments about your approach is disgusting, and your continued misrepresentation of other people's views, hyperbole and untruthful statements are utterly dishonourable. I

3215:

I understand that, but I think it should at least somehow be mentioned that Wood isn't the only one making these claims, she is part of a group of women making them. Now, it appears as if she alone is making them. I don't think any further detail needs to be added, just a mention that several other

3203:

The problem is when a large section of an article about person A becomes about person B. For example, that at least three public representatives in three different states have called for an investigation into Manson has nothing to do with Wood's bio. I think anything resembling a coatrack should be

3184:

Ok, now it looks much better! Thank you! :) I think the only thing that needs to be mentioned somehow is the fact that Wood isn't the only person making these allegations. On Feb 1, when she first named MM, four other women did so too, Wood just happens to be the only one with celebrity status. The

2804:

closes on October 7, after which the drafting committee will submit its recommendation to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, so I am placing this message in this talk page in the hopes of ensuring that editors who can comment constructively on the absence of language providing guidance on non-insult,

1995:

b) trying to gather some data on deleted pages. My thought here is to look at a sample of AFD logs - it turns out to be reasonably straightforward to get a sense of how many articles on a given day were BLPs and their gender (even if deleted, it's usually apparent). We can't get age information, so

1490:

On viewing the article, I raised some disagreements about the lede, so I have an involvement and a bias here. Anyway, another section of the lede says that she "then parlayed her Playboy fame into a television and film acting career starting as a co-host on..." -- the lede then mentions the TV show

886:

No edit warring whatsoever and they have stated twice that they will not edit war over it and maybe disruptive if too strong a word. It seems to be a personal choice on their part but as I tried to explain that when removing the gender pronouns for quite a few of the articles I have mentioned above

792:

who has been doing sterling work in closing the gap. They have created a large number of articles on NZ women in science and since the begining of this year has been starting the articles with a phrase such as "They are currently a full professor at the Lincoln University" and then used the pronoun

396:

We don't have an article on her, as the red color of your link indicates. Are you asking whether we should start a separate article on her? From a quick web search it seems she's only gotten serious coverage in the context of that spreadsheet, and it's highly controversial (she may have lost one or

2855:

Hi everyone I wondered if the insertion of DOB for women may present a form of gender imbalance in that women are more likely than men to be the victims of ageism and accompanying discrimination, and may prefer not to have their ages registered on wikipedia? Is there any option for the subjects of

2085:

looking at deleted page titles and inferring gender from the name (ie if it's called "Susan Smith", probably a man, etc). This doesn't distinguish between BLPs and "historic" biographies, and it could only infer gender for about 2/3 of people, but of the deleted gendered articles, ~23% are female.

1991:

suggests - I've just pulled down data for BLPs which WD thinks are "athletes" (414k, a little under half the BLPs, 16% F) and "politicians" (96k, 24% F), and will report back if they substantially differ from the general set. I'll also investigate if we can gather comparable data for non-BLPs (for

1977:. I believe this is reasonable, and while it's always going to be imperfect, it's fine as long as the error rates are about equal by gender. I don't see any obvious reason they wouldn't be, but this is something I'm a bit cautious over and would be keen to hear any obvious issues I may have missed. 1097:. Maybe it is a case of needing to take a little more time in creating decent articles about really notable people rather than creating an article on every single full professor that is a woman. It's a shame that he hasn't taken note of the different remarks and is continuing his style of writing. 1837:: Thanks for this interesting research. It looks to me as if your work on BLPs is pretty reliable, despite the minor problems you mention. The results are generally encouraging as they indicate an overall improvement over the years in the ratio of female to male BLPs. As has been suggested on the 808:

My main concern over and above the grammar question is that by removing the female pronouns we are lessening the impact on closing the gap. Quite a few of the articles created by Stuartyeates are for NZ female academics that do not have easily gender-identifiable names for the majority of readers

3056:

First of all, I want to apologise if this is not the right forum to write this, but I am hoping to find support and more information. I'm a longtime editor but used to focus more on old (pre-1960s) pop culture/art articles. In the recent years, I've also 'branched out' to more recent pop culture

977:

Thanks for the reply. Like I said there is no edit warring and Stuart's intentions are more than honorable but it just felt wrong that these women were having their gender hidden from readers. It made me think if it were me or anyone I knew I would not want someone taking that away unless it had

841:

and gender neutral language is suggested for generic subjects such as job titles but nothing is mentioned about specific people. I am worried that by systematically removing gender from articles about women we are being counter-productive in closing the gender gap. Does anyone have an opinion on

3094:

If any admins read this forum, please take a look at the Evan Rachel Wood article, it's currently experiencing quite a bit of vandalism from IPs, and most likely this will continue. Likewise, if anyone can advise how to get in touch with an admin/how to go about temporarily restricting edits by

2915:

Greta Thunberg's article starts with the Mental Health section. There is a discussion about whether it is appropriate, as the typical WP pattern for health disclosure is at the end of the article under the Health Section. Many prominent male figures had mental conditions that began to appear in

3073:

Examples: the main editor of Manson's WP articles adding a section about Wood stating that Kobe Bryant was a rapist and wording it in a way that was misleading and deliberately made Wood look bad; the same user disputing Wood's statement that she was underage in an image and thus deleting this

1494:

I would be interested in whether those reading this noticeboard consider this wording regarding a female actor to be helpful in bridging the gender gap, how we encourage female editors and how we write about female subjects. Do male actors "parlay" fame in one field into paying jobs in related

220:

Mathers, Helen (2014). Patron Saint of Prostitutes: Josephine Butler and the Victorian Sex Scandal. Stroud, Gloucestershire: The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-9209-4, where the subject is referred to as "Josephine" throughout Not context specific, in other words. While some people may wish to

2945:

Thanks for the note. I can see both sides here - it's an important part of her early life, which is naturally the first section of the article, and it does naturally flow into the discussion of the activism, yet, yes, it does tend to throw shade at it. I think your suggestion of removing the

1814:

There have been questions recently about whether existing BLPs about women (BLPs that have not been deleted) were more likely to have been taken to AfD at some point. Andrew thinks that used to be true, but that things have recently levelled off. He wrote: "Female BLPs created 2009-16 appear

1218:

I am pretty sure that if this is taken to ANI there is a very good chance that the community will decide that you have to go through AFC for all the articles that you create. This has already happened for an editor that was creating aalarge number of stub articles that were ending up at afd.

942:

Let's be clear here, that I've never reverted let alone edit warred over this and only used it in articles where I am the only editor involved, either in the first edit or immediately afterwards cleaning up loose ends. A number of these articles have been tagged for notability, of these only

442:

I'd worry. We can't write a biography about someone who is only famous for one highly controversial spreadsheet mostly written by other people, her life is much more than that, it would give a very distorted picture, and quite possibly do harm. We could, in theory, write an article about the

1092:

As a New pages patroller I'll also keep an eye on his articles now that his autopatrolled right has been revoked. This is just as well because I've come across a couple of other problems, errors in the bibliography and some editorialising and an awful lot of articles that don't ledon't leet

3291:

Totally understandable, am so tired myself :( I think the Heard one is in pretty ok shape at the moment, and is now more protected, but the Depp article still has the same poorly sourced claims in there, so I would suggest focusing on that instead if/when you have time. Again, thank you!

1167:], which is the page I cut and paste for every new biography. I'm happy to take constructive suggestions, since a recent twitter discussion added ~50 more female professors to my list. Please note, that I'm not doing _every_ female prof, since about 1 in 30 appears non-notable to me. 2120:

apparently more likely to survive deletion nominations, which we'd suspected from the earlier data. The actual deletion rate is still a bit higher than for men, but much closer to the overall average (assuming that recently-AFDed academics are likely to be BLPs, which seems generally

2259:

I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Knowledge contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.

1888:

What is the sex/gender ratio of BLPs at the point of creation, i.e. how many male and how many female BLPs have ever been created, regardless of current BLP or deletion status? (I'm sticking with male and female for now because the numbers outside these values are apparently very

1491:

and goes on to list a series of other TV shows, numerous movies in which she was an actor, etc. From my limited understanding, there is no sourced content in the article linking her subsequent acting career as having been launched due to her initial (nude) modelling career.

271:

It's evidence for your argument, no doubt. And we should certainly provide pleasurable reading where possible, but I do think that as an encyclopedia, if we have to choose, we should be academic. In any case the Josephine Butler talk page seems to be reaching consensus.

2086:

From my data, ~23% of current BLPs are female, and ~26% of those with an associated past AFD are female. A lot to chew on here, but the numbers are all broadly in the same ballpark, and it provisionally suggests deletion follows nomination at about an even rate.

3172:

about whether we need to add something to the policy about this kind of situation. The policy was written before Me Too. It didn't foresee so many serious allegations against public figures, some of them relatively minor public figures. We need extra guidance.

1287:

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.

1343: 1961:

I think we should all be cheered by the headline figure that the proportion of female BLPs has been systematically outperforming the long-term average since 2012. It's taking some time to move the overall ratio, but that is definitely slowly being dragged

1111:

GRuban, thanks for doing that. Domdeparis, I've wondered about the notability aspect too. They don't seem notable to me, the sourcing is poor, and it raises the question as to whether they would want a bio, given that they're entirely private individuals.

2819: 3328: 1685:

To be honest, I'm not totally sure that reporting the percentage of women, men, gay, straight, lesbian or transgender volunteers is necessarily all that interesting. A sourced quote from the commander of the US contingent would certainly be good

956: 3354: 1228: 851: 3117:

is that it's being used as a coatrack for serious allegations against a public figure (a BLP). We're allowed to publish such allegations if there is sufficiently strong sourcing, but I wonder whether there is in this case, and at such length.

3409:

for deletion. The reasons for deletion intersect with the goals of this WikiProject, with the template being claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders. The corresponding discussion may thus be of interest to this task force.

2166:: Thanks for investigating these interesting details. Do you think you could include the results in an updated version of "Gender and deletion on Knowledge". It would be a useful paper to draw on in further discussion of the gender problem.-- 1033: 2845: 3446: 2745: 1147:. Not all full professors are notable, but many are, sufficiently so that I don't recommend a blanket nomination for deletion; maybe one or two if someone digs a bit figure out there just isn't any there there, but often there will be. 3087: 2274:

If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Knowledge. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect.

1815:

noticeably more likely than male BLPs of equivalent age to have been through a deletion discussion at some point in their lives (and, presumably, all have been kept). Since 2016, this has changed and the two groups are about even."

1348: 360: 1360: 3553:

While we read that Wenbo has already been sentenced for this offence, we will now consider the position from our sport's disciplinary perspective. Again, we are extremely disappointed to read this news today." (also reported on

779: 2000:

comments on the other page). I think it would take about ten or twenty person-hours to get some decent data on this - if people are willing to volunteer a bit of time for this, let me know and I'll set something up to gather

484: 1668: 1646: 2132:

raised, "politicians" (10% of BLPs) are about normal (24% F). The same sort of patterns as for overall BLPs - female articles are very slightly longer, and they are slightly more likely to have survived a previous deletion

1346:

will increase or decrease systemic bias in articles. How will we know if partial blocks increases of decreases the ability of women or people who identify as binary to add relevant content to Knowledge articles? Talk to us

241:"I have produced a biography with a difference – ‘Patron Saint of Prostitutes’ tells Josephine’s life story and explains the historical background as well. But it’s not academic – it’s definitely intended as a ‘good read’" 3585: 2783: 1906:

I don't know whether the above is possible, and if so how much work it would entail. If it's a lot, perhaps we should consider paying the person who compiles the figures. I'd certainly be willing to contribute to that.

561: 73: 68: 63: 687: 333: 771: 749: 2414: 3340:

Today is the second new moon of spring. We don't know this, because they refuse to feature this kind of content on the main page, accusing people like me of POV promoting a lunar religion, and suggesting that I'm

424:

that she wrote the spreadsheet and others only report that she's written that she wrote the spreadsheet, is that good enough? But I'm not really worried about BLP1E - single events can be enough to justify a BLP.

3234:

or any other admins reading this page, please take a look at the Depp/Heard pages as well if you have time, there's persistent BLP violations taking place right now, not sure what to do as don't want to edit war.

1642: 1292: 2054:

So on the basis of that very cursory sample, the total number of "no longer a BLP" is rising pretty steadily but is outstripped by the overall BLP growth. (I'm assuming that articles created during the year are

668: 3391: 3104: 3461: 3397: 1970: 719: 3527:

The other editor (an admin) has changed it to a sub-section within "personal life" on the grounds that it is a "bit crazy for a full section" and removed it from the lead as "a bit heavy handed for a lede".

966:, thanks for the reply. Please use female pronouns when writing about women. Calling them "they" feels like (is) an erasure of something very important to them. It's almost like refusing to use their names. 109: 3502: 1613: 1386: 3570: 3301: 3286: 3274: 3260: 3244: 3225: 3210: 3197: 3179: 3158: 3139: 3124: 2905: 2890: 2865: 2284: 2982: 2409: 1920:

If you're just going on "raw number of BLPs" without differentiating between categories, then expect a sudden spike in the deletions of biographies of women for the next couple of months, in the wake of

2095: 2068: 1245: 1013: 972: 311: 2154: 2019: 610: 3188:

I agree that it may be a good idea to develop some sort of style guide etc. for how these types of allegations should be handled, they are tricky. I will be happy to contribute my thoughts if needed!

3029: 2955: 1940: 1929: 1558: 1118: 987: 932: 2775: 2757: 2200: 2175: 1176: 1913: 1850: 1469: 528: 21: 1160: 1106: 918: 900: 874: 452: 437: 418: 1215:

The academic career section mentions her PhD thesis and the fact that she is a full professor on staff and that is it. You really can't pretend that this shows that she meets NACADEMIC can you?

462: 2763: 2327: 2306: 2232: 1748: 1714: 1628: 295: 281: 266: 252: 230: 1282: 508: 286:

Then you do not understand what an encyclopaedia is, regardless of the unthinking and inflexible comments on the talk page, which have a narrow interpretation of what the MoS is (or is for). -

2423:

unbalanced list of notable leagues at the time of creation - and have since been removed but that's probably irrelevant here. Basically, many of the articles need improved referencing to meet

2344: 2318:

Thank you for your response! It would be very helpful if you'd be available for an interview with us. Your suggestions will be very important for us which will guide the design of our system!

1087: 1062: 1048: 793:"she" later on in the article. recently they have gone on to only using "they". As a new pages patroller I came across a few of these articles and was surprised to see this usage which as per 185: 170: 156: 138: 124: 3051: 1779: 215: 1535: 2362: 1996:

it won't perfectly line up, but it does let us get some aggregate data on relative nomination/deletion rates and will also confirm if there was really a substantive change in ~2017/18 (cf

1454: 1515: 587: 621: 3046: 2997: 2970: 2938: 2502: 2350: 1637:

Perhaps you could add a sourced quote from the commander of the U.S. contingent or information concerning which of the people involved in the rescue were transgender or non-binary.

221:

enshrine in Knowledge's practice an element of coverture in a woman being forced to change to her husband's surname, it's something that Josephine fought against her entire life. -

1828: 394: 387: 641: 2419:

An editor is nominating numerous articles about women footballers / soccer players who have played in top leagues in France and Sweden. The leagues most likely were included on

1212:

In the lead you mix up "is" and "are", you can't remove the pronoun and leave "are". There is a single source that is affiliated and you haven't taken the time to fill it in.

3487: 3426: 393:

Sorry, not clear what you are asking. Moira Donegan seems to be a journalist who started a public access spreadsheet that could be used to accuse people of sexual harassment.

374:

including stories by NPR and the NY Times and by MD herself. There was a fear of outing expressed by her, but that boat seems to have left the dock. Any feedback welcomed.

2496: 1429: 1414: 1739:

Since my original post above, there has been the addition of mention of a female head of state in the article, so this is progress in the right direction. More to follow.

646: 978:

specifically requested by the subject. Just because they are notable for something that has nothing to do with their gender doesn't make their gender irrelevant to them.

3531:

I know people are going to say discuss it / start a conversation on the talk page, but I really don't want to get into it, someone else will have to pick up the banner.

2553: 1638: 1374: 2116:. I followed up his classification and found that in his two-month sample, 35% of nominated articles were women, but only 25% of deleted pages - in other words, women 2252:

Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing

3418: 3406: 3399: 3250:

I've tightened the Wood section further, added the other women, and added a "further information" link to the abuse allegations section of the Manson article. See

88: 1885:

How many articles on the English Knowledge were BLPs when they were created, regardless of whether they are BLPs now, and regardless of whether they were deleted?

3379: 3359: 443:

spreadsheet, but I'm not sure it's gotten sufficient coverage on its own, it would be like writing an article about a news article about the Weinstein effect. --

198:"struggling to think of any articles on male subjects which follow a similar practice." Unfortunately (because I do think it should go to last names), I can: 2390: 2138:

For "athletes", however (46% of BLPs!), the numbers are very different. They are more skewed male (15.6%), though the situation is improving over time, and

3547: 1563: 533: 3438: 3430: 2244: 730: 51: 17: 1601:

Second, is there a wider gender gap problem in speleology and related emergency rescue procedures? If so, is there anything that we can do to fix this?

1441:

A remarkable song in its own way. It's been banned on a few radio stations and it looks like a national controversy. Please see the talk page there.

857:

I think "she" is all of more specific, more common, and shorter, so should be used where there is no risk of misgendering. That said, I also agree with

2585: 552:. I thought it might be viewed as controversial but it doesn't seem to be, is there anyone who is good at moving pages who could go ahead and do it? -- 97:

where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity".

3012:

Thank you so much Sarah, looks like your comment and itemizing the options opened the support floodgates. When I grow up, I want to be just like you!

468: 2800:

Perhaps there is a good or practical reason for this; I'm not personally familiar with the high-level Wikimedia policy development process. But the

598: 592: 1123:

I'm not going to be the one that nominates them for deletion! Yes, they're mostly cookie-cutter articles, many with the exact same three sentences:

115:

I'm struggling to think how someone who is supposedly an admin thinks the rules about posting neutral comments or canvassing don't apply to them. -

2794: 3165: 2850: 2694: 1974: 2801: 2145:

I haven't been able to generate numbers for "scientists", unfortunately - the occupation tree is a bit complex here and things start timing out

2480: 692: 496: 490: 2105: 2579: 2368: 1540: 1503: 801:. Stuartyeates' argument for using "they" was that it is common in NZ but another kiwi editor contested this and even if this is true as per 888: 176:

suggest you try not to splinter off the conversation onto several other pages, but keep all objective comments on the relevant thread. -

3555: 3337: 2856:

articles to request that their age is occluded, for this reason? My apologies if this has already been debated. Many thanks and cheers,

2797:

containing summaries of committee meetings the words "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" also do not appear. (In the English version.)

1126:"Jane Doe is a New Zealand Teapot Studies academic. She is currently a full professor at Wassamatta University. After a 1999 PhD titled 2688: 1584:, Permanent US Representative at the UN, soon makes an appearance to reassure the world that the United States is "locked and loaded". 706: 2789: 797:

was not backed up by any sources used because "they" is usually reserved for specific people that do not identify with binary as per

568: 2533: 1546: 1342:

In particular, I would like to learn from people familiar with the gender gap on Knowledge their ideas about how we can measure if

513: 3600: 2675: 1039:

I "feminized" (a better short description would be welcome!) Stuart's last month of new articles. Maybe half already had "she". --

409:? Since she both "outed" herself, and has gotten widespread coverage in major reliable sources, I think we can. Something else? -- 3251: 1838: 1365: 1209:

b: the info isn't out there because there are very few sources that have written about them because they are not notable enough.

575: 548: 2297:

I am glad that you consider me an important member of the community. Please could you tell me how you decided on my importance?

334:

Knowledge talk:Categorization#Revisiting gendered categories: Let's have a clear criterion of "has or can have a proper article"

3508: 2825:

The draft code doesn't mention sexism, racism, or homophobia directly but these are covered in the wording as I understand it:

1420: 1892:

What is the sex ratio of BLPs that have been nominated for deletion at least once, and how many of each were eventually kept?

519: 2934: 1295:. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks: 2793:

version, at least.) It does concern itself with, for example, defining repeated sarcasm as a form of harassment. In the

2671: 94: 2335: 2702: 758:-- I must admit I'm not sure how the original group of editors selected the names on that list (possibly drawn from the 3422: 2609: 1764: 1569: 147:, and if you had any standards you'd address the misleading statement you'd make in your other non-neutral postings. - 1434: 2722: 2698: 2404: 1475: 682: 350: 905:

Aha. I see the articles in question are quite short, in fact several are in danger of being deleted for not meeting

865:

edit warring to keep the "they" after you have changed it to "she"? If not, then the problem seems easily solved. --

1520: 1397: 2510: 2526: 2474: 1401: 636: 3581: 3566: 3550:

which read. "We (the WPBSA) were not aware of this incident and are very disappointed to read of such matters.

3345:. We need to find points of intersection in this struggle. Lets get the new moon on the main page next month. 2665: 2506: 1382: 745: 583: 557: 504: 99:

I'm struggling to think of any articles on male subjects which follow a similar practice. Any input is welcome.

3473: 1419:

The discussion has been removed from that page, because the hook is no longer on the main page. See DYK talk

838: 1487:

about a living person who is also female. She's an actor, model, television host, author, and screenwriter.

2807: 2547: 1808: 785: 129:

Are you? Can you think of any though? I've struck the last sentence since it seems to offend two of you. --

3280:

Thanks. I don't think I can face working on the Depp/Heard articles, but I'll take a look at them anyway.

2881:

has some info on standard practice for when BLP subjects request their DOB be omitted from their article.

2615: 1526: 3539: 3498: 3457: 2946:

subsection heading is a good compromise, it's otherwise a 2 paragraph section, we can live without it. --

2652: 1922: 1705:

Thank you for everyone's thoughts on this. I am researching further and will have some more to add soon.

1367: 1139:

be enough for notability ... but, that said, I think looking deeper, at least half will be found to meet

2764:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Proposed deletion of women's footballer / soccer player articles

2930: 2728: 2059:

mostly on a "recent obituary" basis and were not BLPs at the time of creation, but it's hard to prove)

1770: 837:

this is not too shocking but for longer articles this will become problematic I think. I had a look at

767: 715: 543: 489: 42: 1480:

I have not enclosed the section title in quotation marks only because that sometimes causes problems.

3577: 3562: 3297: 3270: 3240: 3221: 3193: 3154: 3135: 3100: 3083: 2217:

Just stumbling on to this page (didn't know it existed), and this is such fascinating stuff to read,

1378: 755: 741: 669:

Talk:Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#Major update needed for Romance languages

579: 553: 500: 3369: 3042: 2993: 2966: 2886: 2268: 2253: 1576:. In the first article, the relevance and active role of women is made clear early in the article; 1435: 759: 539: 239:, and you are right, it uses Josephine throughout. However, I will need to quote from the author: 3521: 3332:+1 Gender balance, +1 Global perspective, +1 Non-solarian religions, +1 scientific anti-scientism 2637: 2434:

and participate in deletion discussion if there is one, it is most appreciated. Here's the list:

1784: 365: 926:, thanks for pointing this out. That shouldn't be happening. I'll leave a note on his talk too. 798: 240: 3494: 3453: 3442: 3434: 2910: 2645: 2605: 1573: 1356: 1241: 1172: 1009: 952: 615: 3168:. Is anything important missing from that version? I've been meaning to start a discussion at 3374: 3350: 2901: 2861: 2718: 2709: 2401: 2196: 2150: 2091: 2064: 2049:, 4923 created before 2014, 2088 during the year; approx 53000 current BLPs created that year 2042:, 5683 created before 2016, 1884 during the year; approx 61000 current BLPs created that year 2035:, 5495 created before 2018, 2268 during the year; approx 56000 current BLPs created that year 2015: 763: 726: 711: 679: 347: 2641: 3293: 3266: 3236: 3217: 3189: 3150: 3131: 3110: 3096: 3079: 2922: 2046: 2039: 2032: 1447: 1224: 1203: 1102: 1001: 983: 906: 896: 847: 834: 810: 566: 430: 380: 144: 8: 3482: 3472:

There is a BLPN thread concerning one of the women who has accused Donald Trump of rape,

3467: 3038: 2989: 2962: 2926: 2882: 2522: 2470: 2458: 2345:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 20#Category:Manned missions to the Moon

2111: 1997: 1195: 1094: 735: 632: 2593: 3387: 3169: 2841: 2771: 2741: 2661: 2631: 2078: 1554: 1405: 1067:

I've looked through the second half ot 2017, through July, and almost all had "she" in

818: 802: 291: 262: 226: 181: 152: 120: 2454: 2191:

Definitely - I'll keep chipping away at this and bundle it all up into a second post.

1789: 3342: 2600: 2589: 2450: 2323: 2302: 2280: 2171: 1846: 1744: 1710: 1664: 1624: 1609: 1511: 1465: 1352: 1335:

Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.

1237: 1168: 1068: 1005: 963: 948: 862: 789: 1925:

once people realize the implications and start clearing out the stub biographies. ‑

1604:

The name of the cave itself, incidentally, means "Great Cave of the Sleeping Lady".

3524:). I gave the information its own section and added a summary to the lead section. 3346: 3114: 3025: 2951: 2897: 2878: 2873: 2857: 2713: 2543: 2420: 2396: 2358: 2218: 2192: 2163: 2146: 2087: 2060: 2011: 1873: 1867: 1834: 1796: 1391: 1156: 1149:

Also, of course, that's kind of against the very purpose of this WikiProject. Ahem.

1083: 1058: 1044: 1029: 914: 870: 674: 480: 448: 414: 406: 402: 342: 277: 248: 211: 3281: 3255: 3231: 3205: 3174: 3146: 3119: 3007: 2977: 2752: 2007: 1935: 1926: 1908: 1823: 1774: 1530: 1442: 1424: 1409: 1220: 1113: 1098: 979: 967: 927: 923: 892: 843: 814: 606: 523: 425: 398: 375: 236: 2988:→Please discuss your thoughts on Thunberg's Talk page if you have any comments. 2142:

BLPs are noticeably more likely to have been through a previous deletion debate.

1593:

no females, transgender or non-binary persons named at all in the entire article

780:

Gender neutral language for articles on women that do not identify as non-binary

50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3477: 3066: 2517: 2465: 2010:

question #3, which I think is the key to really understanding what's going on.

1499: 1484: 1338:

Partial blocks will retain more constructive contributors than sitewide blocks.

1144: 1071:'s original. I think we're done with the past, though I will try to look in on 944: 830: 626: 469:

Talk:Carolina Nairne#Request for comment on how to refer to the article subject

166: 134: 105: 3561:

If anyone wants to take another run at it with the extra refs then please do.

1870:

said that a large number of women sports bios had been deleted at some point.

1351:

to join the larger discussion. Or I will be monitoring comments on this page.

1318:

Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.

3594: 3383: 2837: 2767: 2737: 2656: 2431: 2424: 1800: 1550: 1140: 833:

etc. They have now moved to removing all pronouns. For stub articles such as

371: 287: 258: 222: 177: 148: 116: 2784:

Discussion of draft Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct closing in nine days

3543: 3365: 2444: 2319: 2313: 2298: 2292: 2276: 2167: 2127: 2025: 1988: 1861: 1842: 1740: 1706: 1660: 1620: 1605: 1507: 1461: 858: 826: 794: 199: 3338:

Talk:New moon § Separating sections: Lunisolar Calendar and Lunar Calendar

2430:

If any editors have time to review and search for references that support

2415:

Proposed mass deletion of top-division footballer / soccer player articles

2082: 3517: 3509: 3062: 3058: 3021: 2947: 2538: 2354: 1581: 1577: 1545:

A Request for Comment that may be relevant to this task force is open at

1152: 1079: 1054: 1040: 1025: 910: 881: 866: 476: 444: 410: 273: 244: 207: 1321:

Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.

1291:

The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under

2267:

For more details about our project, please refer to our Knowledge page

1877: 1819: 1498:

Since it would be tiresome of me not to mention the article name, it's

1130:

at Haye University, she moved to Wassamatta, rising to full professor."

822: 602: 203: 2896:

Many thanks for your reply GorillaWarfare - will take a look - cheers

2351:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#"Manned" renaming

947:

has been taken to AfD; it currently have five independent keep votes.

697: 475:, after the initial mention of her full name? Comments are sought. -- 162: 130: 101: 3520:

reverted / watered down. Wenbo was convicted of assault on a woman (

1923:

the deprecation of the special notability guidelines for pornography

1818:

Andrew, thank you for putting all this together. And many thanks to

1332:

Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.

805:

we should make sure that information is easily understood by most.

3329: 2223: 1866:

these are all good points. I didn't know that about sports people.

1804: 1396:

In case anyone here would like to comment, there's a discussion at

3057:

articles, especially related to domestic abuse cases, such as the

2805:

non-vandalism expressions of prejudice get a chance to comment. --

1502:-- you may also wish to consider whether its current state merits 312:

Having a gendered category only when there's an article behind it

3493:

The controversy was about her not calling it rape, was it not?

1283:

List of proposed measurements about the effectiveness of blocks

3095:

unregistered editors to the article, that would be wonderful!

3052:

Pop culture articles related to domestic abuse and gender bias

1992:

tedious technical reasons it might be trickier, but I'll try).

1304:

Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.

1004:, I've switched to avoiding pronouns several biographies ago. 1956:

Hi all - glad to see this was useful/interesting. Some notes:

1591:

individually named persons in the article are all male, with

1353:

SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative

3336:

Trying to make +1 for addressing systemic bias in academia:

1659:

Thank you, this is a good idea. I will see what I can find.

3535: 3216:

women also came out with similar claims at the same time.

2379: 657: 322: 3576:

Update he has now been suspended from the snooker tour.

2917: 3037:

Thank you all for the supoort in restoring neutrality!

2391:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style#"She" vs. "it" for ships

542:(UK policical party) to be moved into a sub-section of 499:

has been relisted today to try to get some comments. --

463:"Carolina Oliphant, Lady Nairne", by any other name... 401:

says no. Are you asking whether we should name her in

2104:

So I've been looking at this some more, in part from

1587:

But in the second article, it appears that the first

1024:

every week or two. Thank you for your work Stuart. --

3548:

World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association

2790:

draft version of a Universal Code of Conduct at meta

1807:, and has written a fascinating blog post about it: 1547:

Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment

1375:

WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network

647:

Tangentially related (gender-neutral language stuff)

520:

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018

1408:as "an elderly gorilla afflicted with sex appeal". 1236:Thanks for the is/are thing. Fixed in my template. 18:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

3425:. You are invited to comment on the discussion at 3405:Hello, I would request input on the nomination of 1934:Good point, thanks. Glad to see the back of that. 1307:Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits. 95:Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names 1483:I have recently been involved in a discussion at 599:Knowledge:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Parenting 257:And? Knowledge is not an academic publication. - 3592: 3398:Request for input on nomination for deletion of 2006:With that, we have a decent chance of answering 1895:The same information for non-living biographies. 1882:it would be very helpful to know the following: 1799:has been kind enough to compile some data about 89:Discussion at Talk:Josephine Butler about naming 3360:Renaming discussion at Gender bias on Knowledge 1987:a) looking at some "occupational" subgroups as 1078:continued contributions. Thank you everyone. -- 538:I put in a merger request over a month ago for 471:: How should the article refer to its subject, 3427:the entry on the Templates for discussion page 2976:I agree that it's better without the heading. 729:. In terms of the GGTF I'm not too sure about 1971:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Some Pagename 2028:query as to "how many BLPs have since died" 1564:Male bias in cave rescue articles Suggestion 1400:about a hook that was on the main page (now 1313:Partial block’s effect on the affected users 889:Knowledge:Meetup/Wellington/Women_in_Science 784:Hi I have been discussing the above subject 534:Help needed from people good at moving pages 2245:Need your opinion on Knowledge’s gender gap 731:the selection criteria behind the 'Hot 100' 704:Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join 3516:I have just had 2 edits on snooker player 2385:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 1527:Talk:Chairman#Requested move 22 March 2019 2689:Azerbaijani women's football championship 1811:. He has uploaded the graphs to Commons. 1053:2018 done, again half by other people. -- 663:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 593:Related wikiproject proposal on parenting 328:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 161:Whatever. Can you answer the question? -- 3452:It was deleted, after a few relistings. 2124:On the BLPs-by-occupation question that 1568:So, recently I have mostly been editing 696: 2918:https://en.wikipedia.org/Greta_Thunberg 2851:Age visibility for articles about women 2558: 1771:Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019 1495:fields? Do we describe it in that way? 14: 3593: 1398:Knowledge:Main Page/Errors#DYK current 693:Women in Green – call for participants 467:I've started a Request for Comment on 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3145:Ok, now I have to say I am confused, 1639:2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:A9FA:2265:BB01:ECD 1598:First, is this appropriate coverage? 1541:RfC notice: Jewish religious clothing 1128:' Optimal teabags per teapot ratio ' 3013: 1165:You may be interested in looking at 29: 2788:A Wikimedia committee has posted a 27: 3546:reading out of a statement by the 2751:Thanks for posting here about it. 1788: 1769:In case anyone is interested, see 1570:2018 missile strikes against Syria 1525:For anyone interested, please see 1265:Colloquially known as Wassamatta U 1135:Then a list of publications. That 28: 3612: 1327:Partial block’s success as a tool 597:I would appreciate your input on 397:more jobs over it), so I'd think 3413: 3014: 2374: 1969:dependent on my assumption that 1809:Gender and deletion on Knowledge 1299:Sitewide blocks effect on a user 799:Singular_they#Contemporary_usage 760:Knowledge list of Vital articles 652: 514:Sarah Jane Brown move discussion 317: 237:Browsing through online excerpts 33: 1580:is one of the key players, and 1202:If we look at your last effort 788:with a member of this project, 3394:(please ping me if you reply) 3265:Thank you! Looks much better! 2846:20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2820:19:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 1629:18:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC) 1268: 1259: 1246:08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1229:05:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1177:00:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1161:20:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1119:19:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1107:18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1088:15:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1063:11:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1000:As I have explained elsewhere 518:In case anyone is interested, 473:Carolina Oliphant, Lady Nairne 93:You are invited to comment at 13: 1: 3542:7.15pm, began with presenter 3392:03:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 3302:09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) 3287:20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 3275:09:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 3261:04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 3245:11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 3226:08:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 3211:22:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3198:22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3180:21:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3159:21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3140:21:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3125:20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3105:19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 3088:13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 2762:Centralized discussion here: 2410:09:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 1430:00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 1415:22:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 1194:Which notability criteria in 1049:22:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC) 1034:14:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 1014:10:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 988:08:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 973:01:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 957:23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 933:22:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 919:17:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 901:15:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 875:13:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 852:10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC) 839:Knowledge:Writing_about_women 624:that may be of interest. — 562:12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 529:19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 509:19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 296:19:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 282:15:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 267:15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 253:14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 231:22:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 216:18:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 186:18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 171:18:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 157:18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 139:18:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 125:18:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 110:17:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 3534:This evening (1 April 2022) 3047:17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 3030:16:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 2998:23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2983:21:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2971:20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2956:18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2939:18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2906:19:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 2891:19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 2866:19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 2802:discussion of the UCoC draft 1973:can be inferred to be about 1669:18:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC) 1470:18:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC) 1455:18:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) 1387:15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC) 546:(he is leader of the party) 485:18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC) 453:15:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC) 438:15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC) 419:15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC) 388:23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC) 7: 3601:Women's football task force 3437:) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) 2708:is proposed for merging to 2653:Washington Freedom (soccer) 2369:Referring to ships as "she" 2336:Proposed category renamings 1647:15:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC) 1404:) quoting a description of 1368:The NeuroGenderings Network 1361:15:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC) 740:- but good luck with it. -- 361:02:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 10: 3617: 3355:06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 2776:23:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 2758:19:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 2746:19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 2372: 1980:My planned next steps are: 1559:05:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 1536:20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 650: 611:08:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC) 588:06:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 544:Mike Buchanan (politician) 315: 3586:15:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3571:02:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3503:20:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 3488:15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC) 3462:20:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC) 2464:was nominated for DYK by 2363:15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC) 2340:To whom it may concern: 2233:22:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 1749:22:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC) 1715:02:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC) 1614:03:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC) 1516:02:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC) 1476:parlayed her Playboy fame 772:15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC) 750:09:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC) 3447:15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC) 3370:Gender bias on Knowledge 2328:01:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 2307:22:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 2285:19:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 2201:18:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC) 2176:06:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC) 2155:22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 1965:The conclusions are all 1765:Requested move: Chairman 1521:Requested move: Chairman 720:23:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 688:05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 642:18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 540:Justice for Men and Boys 370:There's lots of news on 3419:Template:Gender unclear 3407:Template:Gender unclear 3400:Template:Gender unclear 3164:I've edited it down to 2096:22:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 2083:done a followup on this 2069:22:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 2020:22:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 1941:20:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 1930:20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 1914:19:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 1851:10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 1829:00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 1780:23:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 1436:Baby, It's Cold Outside 1293:§ Proposed Measurements 3423:nominated for deletion 2833: 2254:Knowledge’s gender gap 1839:Women in Red talk page 1793: 1619:Any thoughts on this? 1574:Tham Luang cave rescue 1274:You can figure it out. 1132: 701: 3078:I must not be alone. 2826: 2710:AFFA Top Girls League 2682:Articles to be merged 2487:Articles for deletion 2073:PPS: a second update 1792: 1460:International, even. 1124: 700: 46:of past discussions. 22:Gender gap task force 3578:The Vintage Feminist 3563:The Vintage Feminist 2552:on 26 Sep 2024; see 2047:Category:2014 deaths 2040:Category:2016 deaths 2033:Category:2018 deaths 1379:The Vintage Feminist 1002:User_talk:SlimVirgin 907:Knowledge:Notability 835:Sandhya Samarasinghe 811:Sandhya Samarasinghe 756:The Vintage Feminist 742:The Vintage Feminist 580:The Vintage Feminist 554:The Vintage Feminist 501:The Vintage Feminist 3538:'s coverage of the 3375:Sexism on Knowledge 3113:, the problem with 3065:case, and now, the 2075:on deleted articles 736:Madame de Pompadour 620:There is an RFC at 3512:assault conviction 3378:. Please join the 2632:Washington Freedom 2570:Proposed deletions 1794: 1406:Lady Angela Forbes 1074: 819:Snejina Michailova 702: 491:AfD Limor Blockman 3540:Tour Championship 3495:Emir of Knowledge 3454:Emir of Knowledge 3285: 3259: 3209: 3178: 3123: 2981: 2925:comment added by 2889: 2756: 2726: 2706: 2669: 2649: 2613: 2597: 2565: 2551: 2530: 2514: 2497:Kristína Košíková 2478: 2462: 2045:8635 articles in 2038:8451 articles in 2031:7494 articles in 1939: 1912: 1827: 1778: 1534: 1428: 1413: 1150: 1117: 1072: 971: 931: 790:User:Stuartyeates 640: 622:WT:Wikipe-tan#RFC 527: 86: 85: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 3608: 3522:BBC News article 3417: 3416: 3377: 3284: 3277:TrueHeartSusie3 3258: 3247:TrueHeartSusie3 3208: 3200:TrueHeartSusie3 3177: 3161:TrueHeartSusie3 3122: 3115:Evan Rachel Wood 3107:TrueHeartSusie3 3090:TrueHeartSusie3 3019: 3018: 3017: 3011: 2980: 2941: 2885: 2877: 2818: 2815: 2811: 2755: 2716: 2707: 2692: 2683: 2673: 2659: 2651:move request to 2650: 2635: 2629: 2623: 2603: 2598: 2583: 2577: 2571: 2563: 2556: 2541: 2520: 2515: 2500: 2494: 2488: 2468: 2463: 2448: 2439: 2408: 2386: 2378: 2377: 2317: 2296: 2231: 2131: 2115: 1938: 1911: 1881: 1865: 1826: 1777: 1533: 1450: 1427: 1412: 1275: 1272: 1266: 1263: 1148: 1116: 970: 930: 885: 764:Alanna the Brave 727:Alanna the Brave 712:Alanna the Brave 686: 664: 656: 655: 630: 526: 433: 407:Me Too (hashtag) 403:Weinstein effect 383: 359: 329: 321: 320: 82: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3591: 3590: 3514: 3470: 3414: 3403: 3373: 3362: 3334: 3304:TrueHeartSusie3 3294:TrueHeartSusie3 3267:TrueHeartSusie3 3237:TrueHeartSusie3 3232:User:SlimVirgin 3228:TrueHeartSusie3 3218:TrueHeartSusie3 3190:TrueHeartSusie3 3151:TrueHeartSusie3 3147:User:SlimVirgin 3142:TrueHeartSusie3 3132:TrueHeartSusie3 3111:TrueHeartSusie3 3097:TrueHeartSusie3 3080:TrueHeartSusie3 3054: 3015: 3005: 2920: 2913: 2871: 2853: 2813: 2809: 2806: 2786: 2691: 2681: 2634: 2627: 2622:Requested moves 2621: 2582: 2575: 2569: 2499: 2492: 2486: 2447: 2437: 2417: 2394: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2375: 2371: 2338: 2311: 2290: 2247: 2222: 2125: 2109: 1871: 1859: 1787: 1785:Data about BLPs 1767: 1566: 1543: 1523: 1478: 1453: 1448: 1439: 1394: 1371: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1260: 879: 815:Rukmani Gounder 782: 695: 672: 665: 662: 660: 653: 649: 618: 595: 572: 549:discussion here 536: 516: 494: 465: 436: 431: 386: 381: 368: 366:Is this outing? 357: 340: 330: 327: 325: 318: 314: 91: 78: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3614: 3604: 3603: 3589: 3588: 3513: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3469: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3402: 3396: 3366:requested move 3361: 3358: 3333: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3229: 3186: 3143: 3067:Marilyn Manson 3053: 3050: 3039:Partizan Kuzya 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 2990:Partizan Kuzya 2986: 2985: 2963:Partizan Kuzya 2959: 2958: 2927:Partizan Kuzya 2912: 2911:Greta Thunberg 2909: 2894: 2893: 2883:GorillaWarfare 2852: 2849: 2835: 2834: 2785: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2732: 2731: 2687:29 May 2024 – 2679: 2678: 2619: 2618: 2567: 2566: 2531:was closed as 2484: 2483: 2443:19 Aug 2024 – 2416: 2413: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2348: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2246: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2183: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2158: 2157: 2143: 2135: 2134: 2122: 2112:David Eppstein 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2071: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2043: 2036: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1993: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1918: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1854: 1853: 1786: 1783: 1766: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1632: 1631: 1565: 1562: 1542: 1539: 1522: 1519: 1500:Jenny McCarthy 1477: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1445: 1438: 1433: 1393: 1390: 1370: 1364: 1344:partial blocks 1340: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1325: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1311: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1276: 1267: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1221:Dom from Paris 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1133: 1099:Dom from Paris 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 993: 992: 991: 990: 980:Dom from Paris 945:Maryanne Garry 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 921: 893:Dom from Paris 844:Dom from Paris 831:Lesley McCowan 781: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 707:Women in Green 694: 691: 671: 651: 648: 645: 617: 616:Wikipe-tan RFC 614: 594: 591: 571: 565: 535: 532: 515: 512: 497:Limor Blockman 493: 488: 464: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 428: 378: 367: 364: 355: 316: 313: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 90: 87: 84: 83: 76: 71: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3613: 3602: 3599: 3598: 3596: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3559: 3557: 3551: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3532: 3529: 3525: 3523: 3519: 3511: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3486: 3485: 3481: 3480: 3475: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3411: 3408: 3401: 3395: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3372:, to move to 3371: 3367: 3357: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3339: 3331: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3248: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3233: 3230: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3176: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3162: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3112: 3109: 3108: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3009: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2984: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2875: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2832: 2830: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2803: 2798: 2796: 2791: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2734: 2730: 2724: 2720: 2715: 2711: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2677: 2667: 2663: 2658: 2654: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2633: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2617: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2581: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2561: 2555: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2528: 2524: 2519: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2498: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2482: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2446: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2433: 2428: 2426: 2422: 2412: 2411: 2406: 2403: 2400: 2399: 2392: 2381: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2315: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2294: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2272: 2270: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2255: 2250: 2234: 2230: 2228: 2227: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2129: 2123: 2119: 2113: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1976: 1975:Some Pagename 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1942: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1869: 1863: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1812: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1791: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1772: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1596: 1594: 1590: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1561: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1538: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1486: 1481: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1451: 1444: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1416: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1345: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1294: 1289: 1271: 1262: 1258: 1255: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1200: 1197: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 989: 985: 981: 976: 975: 974: 969: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 954: 950: 946: 934: 929: 925: 922: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 890: 883: 878: 877: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 855: 854: 853: 849: 845: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 806: 804: 800: 796: 791: 787: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 752: 751: 747: 743: 739: 737: 732: 728: 724: 723: 722: 721: 717: 713: 709: 708: 699: 690: 689: 684: 681: 678: 677: 670: 659: 644: 643: 638: 634: 629: 628: 623: 613: 612: 608: 604: 600: 590: 589: 585: 581: 577: 570: 564: 563: 559: 555: 551: 550: 545: 541: 531: 530: 525: 521: 511: 510: 506: 502: 498: 492: 487: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 454: 450: 446: 441: 440: 439: 434: 427: 422: 421: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 395: 392: 391: 390: 389: 384: 377: 373: 372:Moira Donegan 363: 362: 352: 349: 346: 345: 336: 335: 324: 297: 293: 289: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 270: 269: 268: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233: 232: 228: 224: 219: 218: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 187: 183: 179: 174: 173: 172: 168: 164: 160: 159: 158: 154: 150: 146: 145:WP:CANVASSING 142: 141: 140: 136: 132: 128: 127: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 100: 96: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 3560: 3552: 3544:Jill Douglas 3533: 3530: 3526: 3515: 3483: 3478: 3471: 3439:ExoticViolet 3431:ExoticViolet 3412: 3404: 3363: 3335: 3076: 3072: 3055: 3036: 2987: 2961:→Thank you!! 2960: 2921:— Preceding 2914: 2895: 2854: 2836: 2828: 2827: 2799: 2787: 2735: 2733: 2680: 2620: 2601:Traumnovelle 2568: 2562:participants 2559: 2532: 2485: 2445:Beata Olsson 2438:Did you know 2436: 2429: 2418: 2397: 2388: 2339: 2273: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2251: 2248: 2225: 2224: 2182: 2139: 2117: 2106:this comment 2074: 2056: 1966: 1951: 1817: 1813: 1795: 1768: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1592: 1588: 1586: 1567: 1544: 1524: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1482: 1479: 1440: 1423:for a link. 1418: 1395: 1372: 1341: 1326: 1324: 1312: 1310: 1298: 1297: 1290: 1286: 1270: 1261: 1253: 1238:Stuartyeates 1217: 1214: 1211: 1204: 1201: 1196:WP:NACADEMIC 1193: 1169:Stuartyeates 1136: 1127: 1125: 1095:WP:NACADEMIC 1075: 1069:Stuartyeates 1022: 1006:Stuartyeates 949:Stuartyeates 941: 863:Stuartyeates 827:Gail Pacheco 807: 795:MOS:GENDERID 783: 734: 705: 703: 675: 666: 625: 619: 596: 573: 547: 537: 517: 495: 472: 466: 369: 343: 337: 331: 200:Modest Stein 98: 92: 79: 47: 41: 3518:Liang Wenbo 3510:Liang Wenbo 3468:BLPN thread 3347:Jaredscribe 3063:Johnny Depp 3059:Amber Heard 2898:Miles Quest 2874:Miles Quest 2858:Miles Quest 2814:andersnatch 2736:Thank you. 2714:Caspianpunk 2628:19 Sep 2024 2580:Yun Song-mi 2576:17 Sep 2024 2493:19 Sep 2024 2398:SMcCandlish 2389:Please see 2193:Andrew Gray 2164:Andrew Gray 2147:Andrew Gray 2133:nomination. 2121:plausible). 2088:Andrew Gray 2061:Andrew Gray 2012:Andrew Gray 1874:Andrew Gray 1868:Tagishsimon 1835:Andrew Gray 1797:Andrew Gray 1582:Nikki Haley 1578:Theresa May 1373:Discussion 803:WP:SURPRISE 676:SMcCandlish 667:Please see 574:Discussion 344:SMcCandlish 332:Please see 40:This is an 3380:discussion 3364:There's a 3343:WP:NOTHERE 3008:SlimVirgin 2729:discussion 2676:discussion 2599:PRODed by 2554:discussion 2481:discussion 1927:Iridescent 1443:Smallbones 1254:References 924:Domdeparis 823:Toni Bruce 601:. Cheers! 426:Smallbones 376:Smallbones 204:hypocorism 80:Archive 13 74:Archive 12 69:Archive 11 64:Archive 10 3479:SPECIFICO 3421:has been 3252:permalink 3204:avoided. 2879:WP:BLPDOB 2810:truthious 2518:Clariniie 2516:AfDed by 2466:Hameltion 2421:WP:NFOOTY 2026:Ipigott's 1589:forty-six 1449:smalltalk 1137:shouldn't 627:BillHPike 432:smalltalk 382:smalltalk 3595:Category 3556:France24 3384:Xurizuri 3330:New moon 2935:contribs 2923:unsigned 2838:JezGrove 2768:Hmlarson 2738:Hmlarson 2657:StAnselm 2249:Hi all! 2057:probably 1962:upwards. 1805:Wikidata 1803:, using 1551:Ibadibam 1392:DYK hook 842:this? -- 809:such as 637:contribs 399:WP:BLP1E 288:SchroCat 259:SchroCat 235:Thanks! 223:SchroCat 178:SchroCat 149:SchroCat 117:SchroCat 20:‎ | 3282:SarahSV 3256:SarahSV 3206:SarahSV 3175:SarahSV 3120:SarahSV 2978:SarahSV 2829:Insults 2753:SarahSV 2616:deleted 2320:Bobo.03 2314:MPS1992 2299:MPS1992 2293:Bobo.03 2277:Bobo.03 2168:Ipigott 2128:Ipigott 2024:PS: on 2008:Sarah's 1998:David's 1989:Ipigott 1936:SarahSV 1909:SarahSV 1889:small.) 1862:Ipigott 1843:Ipigott 1824:SarahSV 1775:SarahSV 1741:MPS1992 1707:MPS1992 1686:though. 1661:MPS1992 1621:MPS1992 1606:MPS1992 1531:SarahSV 1508:MPS1992 1504:B-class 1485:WP:BLPN 1462:MPS1992 1425:SarahSV 1410:SarahSV 1402:removed 1349:on Meta 1145:WP:PROF 1114:SarahSV 968:SarahSV 928:SarahSV 859:Gadfium 569:Jo Pike 524:SarahSV 43:archive 3170:WT:BLP 3022:GRuban 2948:GRuban 2887:(talk) 2727:; see 2674:; see 2672:closed 2539:RL0919 2534:delete 2479:; see 2432:WP:GNG 2425:WP:GNG 2355:GRuban 2264:time. 2219:Andrew 2079:Magnus 1153:GRuban 1141:WP:GNG 1080:GRuban 1055:GRuban 1041:GRuban 1026:GRuban 964:Stuart 911:GRuban 882:GRuban 867:GRuban 477:GRuban 445:GRuban 411:GRuban 358:ⱷ< 274:GRuban 245:GRuban 208:GRuban 2001:data. 1878:RexxS 1822:too. 1820:RexxS 1076:their 603:Mvolz 567:AfD: 353:: --> 16:< 3582:talk 3567:talk 3558:). 3536:ITV4 3499:talk 3484:talk 3474:here 3458:talk 3443:talk 3435:talk 3388:talk 3382:. -- 3351:talk 3298:talk 3271:talk 3241:talk 3222:talk 3194:talk 3166:this 3155:talk 3136:talk 3101:talk 3084:talk 3043:talk 3026:talk 2994:talk 2967:talk 2952:talk 2931:talk 2902:talk 2862:talk 2842:talk 2795:page 2772:talk 2742:talk 2703:hist 2699:edit 2695:talk 2670:was 2646:hist 2642:edit 2638:talk 2614:was 2594:hist 2590:edit 2586:talk 2511:hist 2507:edit 2503:talk 2459:hist 2455:edit 2451:talk 2359:talk 2353:. -- 2324:talk 2303:talk 2281:talk 2269:here 2197:talk 2172:talk 2151:talk 2140:male 2092:talk 2081:has 2065:talk 2016:talk 1967:very 1876:and 1847:talk 1801:BLPs 1745:talk 1711:talk 1665:talk 1643:talk 1625:talk 1610:talk 1572:and 1555:talk 1512:talk 1466:talk 1421:here 1383:talk 1377:. -- 1366:AfD 1357:talk 1242:talk 1225:talk 1205:here 1173:talk 1157:talk 1103:talk 1084:talk 1059:talk 1045:talk 1030:talk 1010:talk 984:talk 953:talk 915:talk 897:talk 871:talk 848:talk 786:here 768:talk 746:talk 716:talk 633:talk 607:talk 584:talk 578:. -- 576:here 558:talk 505:talk 481:talk 449:talk 415:talk 292:talk 278:talk 263:talk 249:talk 243:. -- 227:talk 212:talk 182:talk 167:talk 163:John 153:talk 143:See 135:talk 131:John 121:talk 106:talk 102:John 3368:at 2766:. 2712:by 2655:by 2537:by 2427:. 2407:😼 2380:FYI 2347:and 2118:are 2108:by 1143:or 1073:his 962:Hi 829:or 754:Hi 725:Hi 685:😼 658:FYI 405:or 323:FYI 3597:: 3584:) 3569:) 3501:) 3460:) 3445:) 3429:. 3390:) 3353:) 3300:) 3273:) 3254:. 3243:) 3224:) 3196:) 3157:) 3138:) 3103:) 3086:) 3045:) 3028:) 3020:-- 2996:) 2969:) 2954:) 2937:) 2933:• 2904:) 2864:) 2844:) 2808:▸₷ 2774:) 2744:) 2721:· 2701:· 2697:· 2664:· 2644:· 2640:· 2630:– 2608:· 2592:· 2588:· 2578:– 2546:· 2525:· 2509:· 2505:· 2495:– 2473:· 2457:· 2453:· 2395:— 2383:– 2361:) 2326:) 2305:) 2283:) 2271:. 2256:? 2229:iz 2199:) 2174:) 2153:) 2094:) 2077:. 2067:) 2018:) 1849:) 1773:. 1747:) 1713:) 1667:) 1645:) 1627:) 1612:) 1557:) 1549:. 1529:. 1514:) 1506:. 1468:) 1385:) 1359:) 1244:) 1227:) 1175:) 1159:) 1151:-- 1105:) 1086:) 1061:) 1047:) 1032:) 1012:) 986:) 955:) 917:) 899:) 873:) 850:) 825:, 821:, 817:, 813:, 770:) 748:) 733:- 718:) 673:— 661:– 635:, 609:) 586:) 560:) 522:. 507:) 483:) 451:) 417:) 354:ⱷ҅ 341:— 326:– 294:) 280:) 272:-- 265:) 251:) 229:) 214:) 184:) 169:) 155:) 137:) 123:) 108:) 3580:( 3565:( 3497:( 3476:. 3456:( 3441:( 3433:( 3386:( 3349:( 3296:( 3269:( 3239:( 3220:( 3192:( 3153:( 3134:( 3099:( 3082:( 3061:/ 3041:( 3024:( 3010:: 3006:@ 2992:( 2965:( 2950:( 2929:( 2900:( 2876:: 2872:@ 2860:( 2840:( 2816:◂ 2812:Ⓑ 2770:( 2740:( 2725:) 2723:c 2719:t 2717:( 2705:) 2693:( 2668:) 2666:c 2662:t 2660:( 2648:) 2636:( 2612:) 2610:c 2606:t 2604:( 2596:) 2584:( 2564:) 2560:5 2557:( 2550:) 2548:c 2544:t 2542:( 2529:) 2527:c 2523:t 2521:( 2513:) 2501:( 2477:) 2475:c 2471:t 2469:( 2461:) 2449:( 2405:¢ 2402:☏ 2357:( 2322:( 2316:: 2312:@ 2301:( 2295:: 2291:@ 2279:( 2226:L 2195:( 2170:( 2149:( 2130:: 2126:@ 2114:: 2110:@ 2090:( 2063:( 2014:( 1880:: 1872:@ 1864:: 1860:@ 1845:( 1743:( 1709:( 1663:( 1641:( 1623:( 1608:( 1553:( 1510:( 1464:( 1452:) 1446:( 1381:( 1355:( 1240:( 1223:( 1171:( 1155:( 1101:( 1082:( 1057:( 1043:( 1028:( 1008:( 982:( 951:( 913:( 895:( 884:: 880:@ 869:( 846:( 766:( 744:( 738:? 714:( 683:¢ 680:☏ 639:) 631:( 605:( 582:( 556:( 503:( 479:( 447:( 435:) 429:( 413:( 385:) 379:( 356:ᴥ 351:¢ 348:☏ 290:( 276:( 261:( 247:( 225:( 210:( 180:( 165:( 151:( 133:( 119:( 104:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 13 - Knowledge

Index