Hi MaryMO (AR)! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Pink Cadillac - Bruce Springsteen (official video)

I'm sure you will continue your exceptional contributions to Wikipedia in the new role. I also hope you'll contribute again to The Signpost such as your Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation.

All the best.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my favorite musical metaphor for how Wikipedia works :-) for @Smallbones: MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your Ode to Joy and raise you a Coat of Many Colors Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Knowable Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Knowable Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow up, in case of confusion. Both me and Theroadislong had reviewed at the same time. While he had arrived at the review above, I performed a round-robin move to bring it into the mainspace thinking it is ok. Nonetheless, a promo tag has been placed on the article. Cheers. – robertsky (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher is EiC of all AR journals, from astronomy to psychology??? Note that the "editor" field in the journal infobox is for the EiC, not for secondary editors, which we don't even list in the body of text, either. However, I suspect that AR is just using EiC in an unusual way, with Gallagher overseeing things that are common to all AR journals, with the "co-editors" in fact fulfilling the roles of EiC for the respective journals. Please clarify. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Randykitty:, Correct, Gallagher is officially titled EiC of all AR journals, even though other people are the lead editors who head up the teams for the individual journals. Wikipedia's use of "editor-in-chief" therefore doesn't align well with the titles used at Annual Reviews, where the senior or lead editors take the title "Editor" or "Co-editor" and the rest of the people working to edit the edition are referred to as being on the editorial committee (and would not be listable as editors on Wikipedia or Wikidata.) In the case of the individual journals I could see maybe using editor the first time the term is referenced, but using the term "editor-in-chief" openly in the text is both confusing and actually wrong, given AR's use of titles. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of Wikipedia's definition of "editor-in-chief" as "a publication's editorial leader who has final responsibility for its operations and policies." that's Gallagher for all of them; the lead editors determine what's going in each issue in terms of content, but Gallagher sets policy. So in that sense using "Editor" for everyone else is appropriate. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That downgrades the positions in terms of how we see Wikipedia notability, and is not consistent with other groups of journals. (eic is enough for notability of an individual under WP:PROF, but not other editors) There's a difference between working responsibility and overall supervision. Functionally , in a review journal normally the e-ic of a title is the one who invites contributors and accepts their articles. The other editors for that title recommend contributors, and work with individual contributors and articles. The group manager, Gallagher, is responsibility for the eic of each title doing their job responsibly, and, presumably, appointing them. Or does Gallagher look at the individual articles in all of the titles and accept personal responsibility for approving each individual one of them? DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DGG, I see I could have phrased that last paragraph better, to distinguish between "operations and policies" of the organization as a whole and "operations and policies" of each individual journal. My apologies. At Annual Reviews, Gallagher has the official titles of "Editor-in-chief" and of "President". His role is primarily executive, focusing on the "operations and policies" of the organization as a whole, rather than the "operations and policies" of the individual journals. He represents the organization publicly. He does sit on the various editorial committees. He is the only person CALLED an editor-in-chief at Annual Reviews, in part for historical reasons. The first two journals had the same founding editor-in-chief, J. Murray Luck, who also started the organization. As more journals were added, additional founding and lead editors were added to develop additional individual journals, but Luck and his successors have retained the official title of "Editor-in-chief".

• The "Editor" (or "Co-Editor") of each journal performs the role of editor-in-chief as Wikipedia defines the term. They hold responsibility for the "operations and policies" of that particular journal, leading its editorial committee. They are specialists in their field, determine the content, invite authors to contribute to the journal, represent the journal (but not the organization) publicly, etc. Cf. JOURNAL. The people who set policy for the journal are designated as "'CO-EDITORS OF THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE - VOLUME 24, 2021". The job that they do matches what Wikipedia calls an editor-in-chief. They work with other "COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE - VOLUME 24, 2021" who may also be significant in their field and might be considered notable based on other criteria on Wikipedia, but would not meet the notability specification as defined for an editor-in-chief. STAFF like the Production Editor who does the nitpicky layout-and-management-work of producing the journal, definitely would not be considered notable.

• So there's an awkward disconnect between use of the title and the role. If you use "Editor-in-chief" referring to the lead editors, someone is going to say "But that's wrong, it says Richard Gallagher is the Editor-in-chief." They'd be right that he holds that title. If you use "Editor" for the lead editors, then their role is not clearly indicated as far as Wikipedia is concerned, opening up the question of who is notable. I'm not sure there's a great solution. Previous discussion was to link editor so that the term shown was editor, but the term linked back to editor-in-chief. Maybe there needs to be more on the draft or on the individual journals to explicitly distinguish between the title and the role. I would value your thoughts, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaryMO (AR), have you considered applying for WP:AUTOPAT status for this account to avoid the need for articles you create to be patrolled? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've just put in a request. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaryMO (AR)

Thank you for creating Global Urban Evolution Project.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaryMO (AR), I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaryMO (AR)

Thank you for creating Lee Limbird.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look for images for articles occasionally. As part of that work, I was looking for copyright renewal information, and found that https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1951r.html says "The images above were scanned by ... and Mary Mark Ockerbloom..." at much the same time that a Wikipedia editor named Mary Mark Ockerbloom is thanking me for adding an image to Natacha Aguilar de Soto! These are both you, I'm guessing? Thank you so much for doing that! Here, have a few more images for your articles:

• 
  Constance Tom Noguchi - admit it, you wrote this one because she has the same name structure you do!
• 
  Anne S. Tsui
• 
  Patrick Bolton
• 
  Wylie Burke

May add more later. --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! @GRuban:, these images are terrific. I particularly like the one of Anne S. Tsui with the flowers behind her; it gives a sense of personality. And yes, that's both me. For a while, I was republishing out-of-copyright books (many with images) at A Celebration of Women Writers at Upenn. That project predates my being involved in Wikipedia, so with a couple of exceptions I've never gotten around to moving them to Commons. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Annual Review of Clinical Psychology into Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I have seen that you take an active interest in writing good Wikipedia articles on political scientists. Would you please have a look at this particular article on an Austrian political scientist, whose Festschrift is forthcoming with Springer in 2023? Regards Austrian political observer (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC) The draft is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arno_Tausch[reply]

• Hi Mary, it may be illuminating to have a look at the (rather tortured) history of this draft, in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arno Tausch (4th nomination). Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Austrian political observer and Randykitty: I've done my best to clean up the sourcing for you. I condensed the final section into a couple of short paragraphs since I felt it wasn't possible to write a balanced discussion of the impact of his work with the listed sources. Hopefully the Festschrift will better address his significance as well as demonstrating criteria for notability. I did feel that the list of books was rather heavily skewed towards his work on the middle east. Best wishes, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much indeed! Austrian political observer (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your expansive contributions on Nina Simons! BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 22:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

You need several in-depth articles about the organization itself from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Society for the Study of Reproduction and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Study of Reproduction, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://cee.mit.edu/rafael-bras-to-receive-agus-horton-medal/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:, it would really help if I could see the text that you removed. You seem to have blocked a large chunk of the article history. Without access to it, there's no way I can respond to or address issues. MaryMO (AR) (talk)

Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found. — Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! MaryMO (AR) (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Black Writers Group, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JSFarman (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mary! I am a big fan of this journal since 90's. Howe & Smallwood (1982) is my favourite, but I have read many others and looked on all issues. I tried explain my reversal in summary. Sounds good for you? Please, when you encounter Douglas Futuyama take a photo and an autograph of him for us. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MaryMO (AR)!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you were familiar with this particular incident. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For excellent work providing remarkable expansion to Anti-vaccine activism. BD2412 T 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disinformation redo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please leave any messages relating to my editing at my main account, after December 22, 2023. User talk:Mary Mark Ockerbloom. Thank you, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]