---

In the Seattle area? Tuesday evening, January 15, 2019, 6-9pm at Wayward Coffeehouse, 6417 Roosevelt Way NE #104, Seattle WA 98115 Wikipedia Day celebrates the anniversary of the founding of Wikipedia. This year in Seattle, Cascadia Wikimedians' celebration of Wikipedia Day will focus on a different closely related project: Wikimedia Commons, which (among other things) functions as the media repository for Wikipedia. When you see a photo or map in Wikipedia, or hear an audio clip, etc., it usually is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and "transcluded" into Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a mix of users' own works and curated third-party content, either public domain or free-licensed. Our event is a hands-on workshop in curating third-party content, mostly early 20th-century photos of Seattle and other West Coast locations. Currently, Wikimedia Commons has two intersecting sets of older photos, one from the Asahel Curtis Photo Company and the other a more general set of Seattle images. At this meetup, we will celebrate the 18th anniversary of Wikipedia by further curating these images by the creation and addition of categories, adding ImageNotes where useful, linking other versions of the same photo, enhancing the descriptions, and identifying and correcting errors. User:Jmabel has already categorized over 1000 images and corrected several hundred wrong dates, misidentified buildings, and etc., but there is much more to be done. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle#Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos.

Hello, Bri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought I would let you know that a draft you started is now stale. -- Dolotta ( talk) 13:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bri. I just saw your photo -- cool! because I know where Toe Jam Hill is. And I wonder if you might know Brian S.

I see in one of your edit summaries that are preparing "for expansion of Oregon Rotation". A new article? That would also be cool. If so, I might be able to help with sources. Let me know. ♦  J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, J. let's collaborate. I'll be inundated with some RL stuff till probably third week in February. If you want to start compiling sources and/or notes ... how about Draft:Oregon Rotation?

I don't know Brian S. as far as I recall, but my brother in law is from not far away from Toe Jam Hill, and I think my first encounter with it was the Cascade Bicycle Club's Chilly Hilly ride. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

This is to inform you that there is no conflict of interest with Ravi Puravankara. I am not related to the person. I am a student and new on wikipedia resides in Bangalore. In Bangalore, puravankara is a known name that is why I planned to create page for ravi puravankara. Digitaldubey ( talk) 11:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hope I didn't mess anything up. It looks good to go, as far as I can tell.

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 22:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Yanet García, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " The Legend of 420".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo ( talk) 00:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hemp in Kentucky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch ( talk) 16:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The article Hemp in Kentucky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hemp in Kentucky for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch ( talk) 21:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Submarine Memorial Chapel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The article Hemp in Kentucky you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hemp in Kentucky for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch ( talk) 19:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I spoke to you in anger when I first read the controversial article. Now that you have withdrawn the article, I want to offer my thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

@ Cullen328: the Signpost hasn't withdrawn the article yet. Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs) blanked it though, but the Signpost has yet to respond or issue a statement. Not saying Bri/The Signpost won't retract/withdraw the article, but it hasn't been done just yet. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Headbomb. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignore the haters

Just wanted to say that I hope this controversy doesn’t make you leave The Signpost. Aside from this one slip-up, you’ve done nothing but a good job during your tenure as EiC. If it weren’t for you, there would be no Signpost. —  pythoncoder  ( talk |  contribs) 13:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:James FitzGerald, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

	Women’s History Wikithon When: Saturday, March 9, 10:00am-4:00pm PST Where: Washington State History Museum, 1911 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98402 47°14′42″N 122°26′10″W / 47.24500°N 122.43611°W / 47.24500; -122.43611 Register in advance here: https://webformsrig02bo3.blackbaudhosting.com/49882/Womens-Suffrage-Centennial-Program GLAM page: Wikipedia:GLAM/Washington State Historical Society Check for updates: Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle#Women’s History Wikithon
FREE. Please register in advance. Includes museum admission and snacks; please bring a sack lunch plus a laptop. Scholars and interested citizens are invited to come together for an afternoon of collaboration to create or improve Wikipedia pages related to Washington State’s suffrage history. Learn from seasoned “Wikipedians” how to edit wiki pages, and work in small groups with women’s history experts. Honor Women’s History Month by updating our reference materials to reflect the dedicated work of Washington’s women suffragists. Bring a brown bag lunch, we’ll provide snacks. Hosted by Washington State Historical Society. Women's Suffrage Centennial Program, Washington State Historical Society -> Events & Programs

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Category:James Turrell, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- wooden superman 12:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

yes this is indeed a notable musician. Kingtd1 ( talk) 00:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		Just wanted to thank you for (and let you know I appreciate) all the hard you put in at the Signpost, particularly the behind-the-scenes work like managing the Newsroom and the writers, that generally goes unnoticed and unappreciated by most readers. I hope you'll consider writing for or otherwise contributing to the Signpost in the future. Cheers and thanks again, - Evad37 [ talk 02:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sorry to see that you left as editor of The SignPost. You will be missed, even if only by me. Not Wilkins ( talk) 19:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins

You were a joy to work with. We had some great collaborations happening. I am sorry if you were somehow blamed for any pieces in the Signpost-you took some significant hits and always responded with grace and poise. I took much criticism myself over the past year and a half by folks who thought I was making fun of everyone. At least the carrots didn't haul me off to arbcom. Contact me with anything if you think I can help. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		To a great editor in chief Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

For more info see the meetup page for Art+Feminism.

Wikipedia’s gender trouble is well-documented. In a 2011 survey, the Wikimedia Foundation found that less than 10% of its contributors were women. While the reasons for the gender gap are up for debate, the practical effect of this disparity is not: content is skewed by the lack of representation from women. Let’s change that. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is continuing a series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn and gender non-binary artists of color. Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Everyone is welcome. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. Please create a Wikipedia account before the event. RSVP through this Facebook event link. When: Saturday, Apr. 6, 2019, 1–5 PM Where: Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Art Building #132, 1915 NE Chelan Ln, Seattle, WA 98105 Event Sponsors: Jacob Lawrence Gallery, School of Art + Art History + Design Event Page: Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon Parking: Free parking is normally available on campus after 12pm on Saturdays.

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Weed the People has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist ( talk) 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I had to Undo your edit, as Blogspot is not an acceptable reference. If you wanted to make the work by Ikeda that you mention the primary reference, that would be okay I think.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 00:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Daveler16: I agree, Blogspot is not an acceptable reference. That's why I removed it [1]. Is there a misunderstanding here? ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Evidently. I guess I misread the edit. Apologies.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Materialscientist ( talk) 00:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Caitlín Kiernan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- wooden superman 08:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)  —  Amakuru ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC) -- SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		This user deserves recognition for their work on The Signpost! Especially for the heads up on the North Face story, but for a lot more than that.
{{ The Signpost Barnstar}}

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you fixing the COI template on my talk page. I thought a bot did it, until I checked the edit history. I wasn't aware I could use that syntax. Much appreciated, -- Naadobea1776 ( talk) 20:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as you had feedback on the draft regarding primary sources, which now has been replaced by a secondary source, I thought you might be interested in reviewing the page. I've flagged it for AFC today here: Draft:Chris_J._Young Thanks. Naadobea1776 ( talk) 15:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Bbb23: Meh, "orthogonal" as you noted my use of it has been in the Jargon File since 1990 [2] ... Wikipedia is not where I started picking up the lingo. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If I say you picked it up at Wikipedia, then you picked it up at Wikipedia. I am the great and powerful Bbb23.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, just remember that wizards are sometimes figments of the imagination. Funny you should mention that story because I found out only because of editing WP that Baum and I likely share a common ancestor in upstate New York. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Worse than that. In this case the wizard was a fraud. I found out I was related to Toto, so I've got you beat.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say Toto doesn't exist either, but according to WP they do. Learned something new today. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A little long in the tooth, aren't they?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There's also TheDJ which has given up a bunch of rights / deleted their user page. This one, I believe, in protest the community, rather than the WMF's response. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Headbomb: Appreciate the tip ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Are they all just "protest strikes", as your current wording suggests? For example, it is as much the case that I seek clarity and fear that I could be in the WMF firing line without such. I say as much here. Note that despite some claims at WP:FRAMBAN, including from a steward, that the project will go on etc, it is already apparent that the lunatics are beginning to run the asylum in the caste etc topic area, where burn-out of neutral, experienced contributors is high and the influx of problematic contributors and socks is a persistent problem (just ask Bishonen), for example.FWIW, aside from my many detractors relating to matters India, this is relevant to my personal alarm vis-a-vis the WMF's actions. Bear in mind the allegation notified to Fram regarding The Editor Who Shall Not Be Named, who has a huge breach of WP:POLEMIC on their talk page and as recently as this month was still seemingly adding swathes of poor content to mainspace. There seems to be a group of uncritique-ables, as well as of unblockables. - Sitush ( talk) 03:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush, I'll find a way to explain not all strikes are symbolic/messaging/what-have-you ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

See admin MikeLynch ( talk · contribs) contributions - seems fairly clear they have retired due to this. - Sitush ( talk) 05:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the farewell note from WJBScribe is eloquent and really encapsulates what a lot of us feel are the problems here. Might it be worth citing in the upcoming report? Haukur ( talk) 12:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you happen to know of the ultimate fate of the once weekly 'Office Hours' on IRC that was begun in 2009 as a regular WMF/Comunity online meetup? I can't seem to find any mentions of it since 2015. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I dont but maybe user:Pine or user:Bluerasberry can help. They are more plugged in to WMF goings-on than I am. ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, have a look at meta:IRC office hours. -- Pine (✉) 00:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If the logs are correct, there were four in 2017, eight in 2018 and two in 2019. Curious. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the recent logs are incomplete. They appear to show only one time events. They omit the Research Showcase meetings, the WMF Monthly Activities Meetings, the WMF Tech Talks, and possibly others also. You could contact GVarnum-WMF if you would like the logs to be more comprehensive. Personally, I think that the logs should be more comprehensive but I don't want to add this issue to my agenda at the moment. -- Pine (✉) 01:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to take the opportunity to commend your team, and you in particular for your excellent work in updating the Wikipedia community. Best wishes Nishidani ( talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The article constitutional crisis - very well done. Better than some of the so-called "professional" articles I've read lately. TY - I appreciate the time and effort you put into that. — Ched :  ?  — 00:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ched thank you very much. It's comments like yours that make me think I'm doing something right from time to time. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For excellent work summarizing a complex, sensitive, and urgent story, I award you the Signpost Barnstar.-- ragesoss ( talk) 04:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your reporting on Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram in this issue of The Signpost -- Pine (✉) 06:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For excellent work on the Signpost covering a surreal situation Montanabw (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy to have help or start fresh and merge in what I started. Cheers. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll get some sources gathered first. Thanks! ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bri,

I'm new to Wikipedia. Trying to do stuff and not break it. I'm really impressed by your consistent contributions to the project... just looking at your history.

Keep it up, but enjoy your WikiBreak first.

~Double Oh Zilcho

Double Oh Zilcho ( talk) 05:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bri!

If you feel like it, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CEOWORLD_Magazine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I read this comment with interest. In the British Army and similar armies which use regimental system, regiments are rotated not individuals; and most officers and other ranks remain in the same regiment for their whole enlistment. In British regiments soldiers learn the history of their regiment and its traditions. This has both good and bad affects: inter-regimental rivalries can last for centuries. In the Indian Army individual regimental histories and traditions for seniour regiments go back to the old British Indian Army (as do their older battle honours) -- this in itself is a tradition taken from the British Army who's regiments trace their anticedence back to regiments that existed before the British Army came into existence (in 1707). I wonder if there will be Wikipedia editors around 350 years from now, still in the deletest and inclusionist regiments with their battle honours on their dusty old colours lodged in the Cathedral and the Bazaar. -- PBS ( talk) 22:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, I was referring specifically to U.S. Federal forces. I suppose that the United States National Guard organization is closer to the regimental system in that each state's Guard definitely trains and often fights together. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Motorcycle accessory manufacturers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Bri, would you please have a look at Draft:Sanjiv Puri? One editor, Meeanaya (over 500 edits), has accused Piboc (about 20 edits) of paid editing. It is hard for me to believe that someone would pay such an inexperienced editor as alleged, but I know that you have worked to expose undisclosed paid editing & thought that you would have a better eye for this. Peaceray ( talk) 23:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Peaceray It is possible. It's unusual for a naive editor to create this in one fell swoop. This is one of the factors listed at WP:Identifying PR, as well as possible Flickrwashing. I guess it's moot now that's been accepted as an Article for Creation. ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this one is basically yours, you may want to look at what I've written on the talk page. David B. Williams seems to have a very different set of facts than what you got. - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, ping me if you answer: I don't keep a watchlist on en-wiki these days. - Jmabel | Talk 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jmabel I didn't mean to ignore this. It looks like we have conflicting sources. Usually when that happens I don't try to sort it out but just state in-article that there are conflicting sources. OTOH I respect David B. Williams's scholarship more than the other works (e.g. Arcadia press). Do you have any suggestions on resolving? ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on Williams being more reliable. I'd either go with Williams or handle it as conflicting sources. I don't really care which, but I certainly wouldn't leave out what Williams has to say. - Jmabel | Talk 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/Clerking_RfC#Basic_proposal Leaky caldron ( talk) 14:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this doesn't look right. We have a defeated proposal (by 38 to 25) with !votes on specified clerking activities defeated by the overarching proposal. Yet people are carrying out those clerking activities? It looks like the only defensible one is a kind-of-separate proposal that A3 be carried out by any editor, not clerks specifically. Yet A3 specifies "redact the entire comment/vote if it consists entirely of incivility or personal attacks" (emphasis mine), which clearly doesn't apply e.g. to detailed and coherent discussion of the Strickland affair nor this discussion on application of individual editors' RfA criteria. Kudpung am I following your train of thought here? Do you think this should be raised somewhere? ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I first brought up the idea of clerking at WP:RFA2011. It's 9:00 am here and I have to go to the office. What I have glanced over looks like something I may have missed, but it's a lot to read. I'll get back to it later today and let you know what I think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Although he's not the most active, Ched is an admin for whom I have the greatest respect. Today's state of affairs is different from that of the pre 2015 reforms. I have never done any 'clerking' myself because I prefer to start or comment on RfCs about it. IMO, the current climate at RfA is partly due to those reforms owing to the doubling of the number of voters and with it, the doubling of the drama. Generally, the opposers at the RfC were not addressing the reason why clerking is being called for. Like Xaosflux: ...against having to specially qualify a subsection of editors for just this one task, they were opposing the need for a special group of users to be designated for the task, and Joy: Many opposing !votes are worried about excess bureaucracy, yet we're already indulging in an unnecessarily bureaucratic approach that gets more convoluted with every iteration..

On the support side, this comment ( #12) by clpo13: ... proper indenting and moving long threads to the talk page are uncontroversial, but the other RfA reforms promise to introduce changes that might be too controversial for just any user to deal with (removing excess questions, keeping !votes and questions civil, etc... pretty much sums up my opinion.

In the discussion section, the proposer says: If this proposal does not pass, the consensus would seem to be that all clerking should be informal, not that there should not be any cleanup/civility enforcement/question management/etc. If so, I find that acceptable.

Dank's closing, which included

As most of you know (and I'm counting at least 4 ways that voters here could or should have known), in the first RfC in this series, a "clear consensus" (probably a superconsensus) was found that something needs to be done about hostility toward candidates during RfAs. (Of course, RfA can be even more hostile to voters than to candidates sometimes, but that's not the question of the moment.) Maybe I'm missing something, but can anyone here point to any comment made in any of these RfCs that suggests an approach to the hostility problem that might be relevant to this RfC, other than what some are calling "clerking"? (Part of the problem, of course, is that the term hasn't been defined, and it's clear that different people mean different things by it.)

was technically accurate, but called for further discussion that was never held. IMO if all the off-topic and incomprehensible votes had been struck, while the RfC would still not have reached a consensus, a further one at a later date (and especially perhaps now) might succeed. The problem of RfA is twofold: first it's the incivility and disingenuous voting, while secondly, it's precisely this which is putting off candidates of the right calibre from coming forward. While at WT:RfA some may argue that it's a necessary and justifiable hazing ceremony, it's not every candidate who even wants to work in contentious areas - there are plenty of other tasks that require the admin bit. In the army, all recruits, even those in non-combat roles, have to go through basic training, barrack room bullying, and square bashing, but Wikipedia editors are not soldiers (even if some of us are or have been in RL) and intransigent RSM behaviour is not wanted here.

The itty-bitty parts of the rest of the RfC were just Biblioworm's way of doing things - although it is one feasible way of approach depending on the matter to be debated. He and I agreed on most things, while we did differ greatly on his approach to them. The participation was low and hardly a quorum for anything as important.

As for the comments on my talk page, well, newbies see admins being baited all the time so they think it's cool to join the sport, even if we have given them advice in good faith. Because they are new, we're not allowed to warn them or block them. We can only hope they will grow up. Others are users who practically semi-retired almost as soon as they had won the admin badge.

Bri, you'll have to interpret the RfC vs the current practice as best as you think fit. I still firmly believe that some kind of pro-active initiative is required at least until the voters all become potty trained or stay away from the process, with or without designated clerks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Agreed with "technically accurate, but called for further discussion that was never held". FWIW, after that, I paid a lot less attention to RFA in general. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey I got quoted :D Yes, I was (and still are) opposed to creating dedicated "RfA clerks) (akin to ArbCom clerks). Although I was a supporter, the section on having 'crats perform clerking services was fairly well received, though it did not exclude others from possibly being allowed to clerk as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Seattle area? You are invited to the Seattle Wiknic 2019 on Saturday, August 24, 2019, noon to 3pm at the Washington Park Arboretum, in the meadow area to the south of the Graham Visitors Center, approximately at 47°38′15″N 122°17′38″W / 47.637435°N 122.293986°W / 47.637435; -122.293986. Click here for more details!

Hello, Bri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Seed to sale tracking systems".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Dom from Paris ( talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a real article to fill this gap. I think that we should be using numerals for numbered streets to match the majority of modern street signs and avoid conflicts when articles are created for higher-numbered streets (if they are notable). Sounder Bruce 22:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure ... according to WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't names follow the sources, rather than to avoid internal name conflicts? I'd say from my research the majority of sources said First Avenue, but the street signs do say 1st Avenue. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources aren't all that consistent with usage, but the city government is consistent in using numerals for addresses and project names. Road articles have not traditionally followed COMMONNAME (mainly because it created a conflict that required arbitration) and used a separate naming convention based on official names from government authorities, which is something that I would rather follow. Sounder Bruce 00:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bri,

   Not sure if I'm using this page correctly. I went onto Wiki to correct the page that is about me, which is full of errors. 

The one I made is correct, but now it's gone and the old one is up again. I'd be happy to provide you with correct information if you'd like to fix it.

Miles Okazaki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.243.191 ( talk) 17:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made an error. It happens. 331dot ( talk) 20:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, 331dot. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, AEV (musician), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. There was a discussion at NPP a while back, see here, where it was decided that articles which have been prodded or speedied should not be reviewed until a decision on the tag has been made. This does not include AfD, as those articles will be subject to the decision of the discussion. Thanks for your help on NPP, it's greatly appreciated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks Onel5969. I just started patrolling again today and didn't know. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thought you might not have known about the discussion. Thanks for coming back. We can sure use the help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sistina (given name), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm the author and main developer of Castle Game Engine (I mean I'm the author of the software, not of the original wiki page). I noticed that the article was proposed for deletion by you.

I have edited the article to hopefully address it. I mentioned the features, applications and scientific papers relevant to the subject. Most of these can be also be found from the main engine website, https://castle-engine.io/ .

Being the author of the engine, I am certainly not objective, so I of course respect if your decision remains to delete the article. However, if there's any information I could provide to prevent this, I would be happy to do so, please let me know. The engine is used in "production", and in published scientific papers, also by independent developers. I am actively working, and encouraging others to work together, to make the engine as notable as possible :)

Note that I am a completely "newbie" Wikipedia author, so please excuse any errors I made when editing the article.

Regards, MichalisKamburelis ( talk) 08:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, the sources you added are all authored by you. Is there any independent coverage of the topic at all? ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer!

I can mention some websites that wrote posts about Castle Game Engine (completely independently from me):

* https://lazplanet.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-to-install-castle-game-engine-in.html

* Andrzej Kilijański wrote a few articles in recent months: https://digitalkarabela.com/category/gamedev/castle-game-engine/

* https://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Castle-Game-Engine-6.0

* https://www.developpez.com/actu/136808/Decouvrez-Castle-Game-Engine-un-moteur-3D-open-source-ecrit-en-Free-Pascal-et-specialise-dans-la-realisation-de-jeux/

* Not sure do these qualify: Some threads like https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?topic=40232.0 or https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/bv54p3/castle_game_engine_65_beta_available_for_download/

* The links from https://castle-engine.io/all_programs.php lead to various games -- some of them are done and released by completely independent people. I realize that these are not news sources, they are just games using the software.

* There are quite a few scientific papers mentioning Castle Game Engine: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Castle+Game+Engine%22 (I'm the author of 1st and 2nd articles on this list, but the rest is by independent people).

MichalisKamburelis ( talk) 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I will take this to AfD for a community decision. You might want to add those sources beforehand, maybe in a Further reading section. Although I will probably contest them as poor quality blogs and non-authoritative websites. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, I have edited the page a bit to include some links to independent sources. MichalisKamburelis ( talk) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, a new user, supposedly the product developer, added material to Castle Game Engine with a few cites to their own site and then removed the PROD template. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the above section . —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads-up -- I noticed that a lot of description of the 3270 is labeled "historical note" and surrounded by "blockquote" tags, however, no source is identified. I removed the tags and left this material as normal text. If it is indeed a quote, possibly you can identify a source. Peter Flass ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon, and I'm sorry about the poor quality of the machine translation.

Protecting the health of workers with respirators in the RF is very bad. So I created the initial versions of several articles on this topic in Russian Wikipedia (to warn people); and then the articles were improved by different authors. Several articles were translated into Ukrainian, Bulgarian and English (these translations are not always very good from a literary point of view, unfortunately: Respirator fit test, Cartridge (respirator), Respirator assigned protection factors and Workplace respirator testing). Please, explain - what I have to do now. AlexChirkin ( talk) 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Responding on your talkpage. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Companies formerly based in Redmond, Washington, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not acknowledge the nominee can be "arrogant, obnoxious, and unwilling to admit any alternative explanation for a given event than his preferred theory", I explicitly said that Fram had on occasion acted that way in the past and that "Fram was warned about his conduct in 2018, and since then the issues that caused concern have been virtually non-existent". Given that a reasonably significant aspect of the Fram case has been about Signpost writers being caught red-handed making demonstrably false allegations (I think the previous attempts to cover the Fram case may have been the only occasion in Wikipedia's history where a Signpost report has proven so problematic it's needed to be deleted altogether as a BLP violation), you really shouldn't be making statements that can be proven false simply by reading the page on which you're reporting. ‑  Iridescent 21:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Has been arrogant..." was your original quote, not that it makes a huge difference in semantics in my mind. Has been sort of implies a future possibility doesn't it? That said, I respect your wish to have your words accurately reflect your intent and have changed it. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This issue appears to remain unresolved. [3] I'll let you two work it out. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bri. We've butted heads a couple of times and I know I can be a grumpy reader. But I just wanted to say that I think the Signpost is important and I know you've put a lot of selfless effort into it. Even if we see some things differently I really do appreciate your work and dedication. Haukur ( talk) 21:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		I know you don't need another Signpost Barnstar, but please accept my thanks for an extraordinary effort under pressure Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I saw something that said that you needed a summary however I did not need one such as your talk page -- Personisgaming ( talk) 02:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle § Editing as Activism: Edit-A-Thon to Correct Systemic Bias in Wikipedia Help address the systematic biases relating to gender, race, and social class that lead to under-representation of topics, people, and organizations on Wikipedia. When: Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 9am–1pm Where: UW Libraries Research Commons, 4000 15th Ave NE, Seattle, Washington 98195 Hosted by: Labor Archives of Washington, UW Special Collections, and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group Facebook event page Please register here To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Cascadia Wikimedians User Group

Hello Bri ( talk), I have created a draft page. Can you help me improve the draft Draft:AvantStay? -- PicasaPicaso ( talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No thanks. I've got plenty of volunteer-directed stuff on my plate ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In the section "'Potential misuse' of oversight precedes resignation", you write that "Just prior to the resignation, a self-requested oversight audit was completed by the Arbitration Committee with the comments A consensus was reached that the suppression should be reversed and We thank [DeltaQuad] for her diligence in self-reporting the potential misuse ...". This heavily implies that the Committee itself reached a consensus that "that the suppression should be reversed". However, this is not the case. The Committee's announcement states: We note that after the suppression in question was queried, DeltaQuad initiated a discussion on the oversight mailing list. A consensus was reached that the suppression should be reversed, to which DeltaQuad agreed. In other words, the participants at the oversight mailing list reached a consensus that suppression should have been reversed, not the Committee itself.

Also, I hope that you will note that this is a fairly normal occurrence. The oversight policy states that Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing [non-public] information (emphasis added). Revisions can be easily unsuppressed on review, but oversighters cannot by pressing buttons force other users to un-see suppressable non-public information. When an oversighter suppresses revisions where reasonable people could disagree, therefore, and that suppression is later reversed, it does not generally constitute an abuse of the tools unless it was unreasonable to begin with. In this case, the Committee evidently agreed that DeltaQuad's actions did not approach anything close to misuse or abuse of the tool, explicitly writing that The committee is satisfied that this resolved the matter and that DeltaQuad acted in good faith in accordance with the oversight policy. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Kevin thanks for the feedback. We're less than a week from publishing but there's time to take this into account. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin: the partial quote reads to me as a distortion of our actual motion (which I wrote). It's a short motion – is it not possible to quote it in full?

Also, a correction on the timeline: DQ requested the audit four days before she resigned her tools, but it was completed after the resignation. I don't know why DQ decided to retire and relinquish her bits, but logically it can't have been a response to our audit. Unless you know something I don't, it seems overly speculative to imply a connection between the two incidents at all. –  Joe ( talk) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel comfortable making the connection especially since DQ already gave a timeline on her talkpage pointing to the inciting incident. It's obvious there weren't any other controversial events at the same time.

Also, would folks mind commenting on Signpost content at the appropriate venue? User:Smallbones please tell us where this should be conducted. The column talkpage? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom is as good a place as any. Let's leave the comments section of the article clear until *after publication*. @ Joe Roe and L235: Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 16:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved to the preexisting Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Oversight irregularities and resignation ... I had already created this as I expected to have a conversation about it. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC) A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordan Evans (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Evans (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat ( talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I found a long Washington Post article about Evans (source info: As Trump administration eyes writing transgender people ‘out of existence,’ a reckoning for a transgender Republican;

Stanley-Becker, Isaac. The Washington Post (Online), Washington, D.C. Oct 22, 2018.). Can't give you a link because it's through my library proxy, but would you like me to email you the article as pdf? Schazjmd  (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

‎@ Schazjmd: thanks. The full WaPo title is "As Trump administration eyes writing transgender people ‘out of existence,’ a reckoning for a transgender Republican". It looks like the piece was already mentioned by Dennis Bratland in the AfD. I can't participate right now but will as soon as I can. Is it ironic or just plain awful that we're defending the existence of a biographical encyclopedia article on a person based on a news story about a class of people being "written out of existence"? -- Bri.public ( talk) 20:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There's definitely a perverse synchronicity to it... Schazjmd  (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Military stress card & IP was blocked anyway
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Military stress card article should be deleted; it is based on misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the TIME source. It contains the sentences: "The military stress card, a wallet-size card incorporating a liquid crystal thermometer, is the subject of debate whether or not its use by recruits is an urban legend. According to Snopes.com and Stars and Stripes, stress cards can not be used by recruits in boot camp to halt training.[1][2] But according to Time magazine, it was issued for this purpose by the Navy for recruits heading to boot camp at RTC Great Lakes." However, the TIME source does not mention anything about a card that incorporates a liquid crystal thermometer. The TIME source talks about the same card that was mentioned in the snopes (which is blue and does not contain a thermometer). TIME does not say it can be used to halt training. It says: "The card instructs a recruit to hand it over to a Navy trainer if he or she feels blue." and if we look at the image on snopes we see the card contains the sentence: "present this card to your RDC". The image used in the article is misleading; that is not the real card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 ( talk) 06:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC) If you are not intentionally misrepresenting the source to add a hoax to Wikipedia then you should get that article deleted. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,138095,00.html https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stress-cards/ /info/en/?search=Military_stress_card — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 ( talk) 05:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Moving this to article talkpage so more people can participate. I may or may not have time to deal with it right away. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Can you create the deletion page please? You created the hoax article; you might as well help get it deleted. 188.72.102.7 ( talk) 16:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Military_stress_card&action=edit&redlink=1 I am curious why you created the article. It looks like you intentionally misrepresented the TIME source to create a false balance where none existed. Is there a better explanation that shows it is actually just a mistake? 188.72.102.7 ( talk) 16:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) If you continue to accuse other editors of creating hoaxes you will likely be blocked form editing. Wikipedia policy requires that you assume good faith. Nobody has to create your articles for deletion pages for you. If you take the time to learn how the process works and what the criteria for article deletion are, you will discover along the way that you don't have grounds for deletion and you'd be wasting everyone's time. What you can do is go to Talk:Military stress card and explain in a civil fashion what changes or improvements you think are necessary. You should understand that we're not going to delete unicorn or Piltdown Man. Things that don't exist, or things that somebody made up or that someone is misinformed about, can be perfectly valid subjects to learn about. We do need to take care to make sure that we state clearly what is a verifiable fact and what is a misconception. You participation in making those improvements is welcome. No more personal attacks or accusations of deception, please. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC) "deletions of content an IP does not like" does not sound like assuming good faith to me. The problem is not that I do or do not like the content. The problem is that it is misrepresenting the source. I have posted on that page but no one has responded yet. Lets talk there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 ( talk) 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're one of the few other editors active on Miss Universe 2019 that I trust to be entirely good faith, so I'm confiding this in you. Disruptive editors are once again tampering with the article, and are now supporting each other's disruptive editing on the talk page. I reverted the most disruptive of their edits, but I just know this is going to result in them attempting to edit war with me again and I just don't have the patience for when this inevitably happens. So just letting you know maybe keep an eye on the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2019 Notes Subsection/Subheading Removal

Since Jjj1238 has already posted this here, I have opened a discussion on the Miss Universe 2019 talk page asking Jjj1238 about a particular deletion/edit they have recently made here:

I asked:

"Hi, Jjj1238. In your edit here, you described it as "notes section was removed through consensus", which consensus is this? Was this discussed here, on the Miss Universe 2019 talk page? If not, please direct me to the said discussion and eventual establishment of consensus. I seem to be unable to locate such discussion and consensus, and the page it's on. Thanks."

To clarify, I have not made any edits on the Notes part of the Miss Universe 2019 article, but since I've been part of the editors who have been contributing to the overall content of the article, I have a responsibility to ask for clarification from Jjj1238, especially on their basis/reason why they deleted almost the entirety of the Notes subsection on the Miss Universe 2019 article, with the reason that a consensus has been established for said deletion. I have yet to read/see said resolution/consensus.

I hope this matter gets clarified soon.

Thanks, Bri.

Migsmigss ( talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Calendar page Jacob Lawrence Gallery — Calendar | School of Art + Art History + Design | University of Washington When Saturday, Nov. 16, 2019, 1 – 5 p.m. Campus location Art Building (ART) Campus room Jacob Lawrence Gallery Event types Special Events, Student Activities, Workshops Event sponsors Jacob Lawrence Gallery, School of Art + Art History + Design with support from Wikipedia and Art+Feminism Facebook event page www.facebook.com/events/2475807515865167/ Description Free parking is normally available on campus after 12pm on Saturdays. Check the Gallery's website for information about getting there. The ‘Big Four,’ or the four white male artists that comprised the Northwest School, were the subject of the famous 1953 LIFE magazine article, "Mystic Painters of the Northwest": Guy Anderson, Kenneth Callahan, Morris Graves, and Mark Tobey. Each of these artists have robust pages on Wikipedia. However, key female-identifying artists from this time such as Margaret Gove Cafferman — who Mark Tobey cited as an influence on his work — lack Wikipedia articles. [* 1] To help address the imbalance of representation on Wikipedia, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is organizing an Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon focused on female-identifying artists of the Pacific Northwest. Childcare, snacks from local businesses, editing tutorials, books, and lists of artists will be provided. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Everyone is welcome. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. Please create a Wikipedia account before the event. ^ Mentioned in Emily Pothast's lecture "You Are Not Invited: A Critical Survey of Seattle Art History" on May 30, 2019 at the Jacob Lawrence Gallery. To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bri.

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I'm new to this and trying to educate myself, but a little confused by your message. I work for New England Law | Boston; once the COI issues were brought to my attention, I stopped editing the school's page and undid some edits. I am happy to note them as my employer on my page.

I am not paid for any edits and have no other affiliations to disclose.

Thanks, Jessica. —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I was adviced to ask the editors who assigned the templates in order to find out from them if they can be removed. So, we have requested our edits to have the article updated but we would also like to remove the UPE template since it is no longer the case with the article. Thanks, have a nice day. Kriptocurrency ( talk) 11:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The rule that seems to be followed is the template stays until substantial edits by non COI editors leaven the problem. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the tag specifically claims that 'This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments' which is not the case because most edits have been discussed before they are implemented by non coi editor and payments have been disclosed... you put that tag almost two years ago. Does it means we can remove it? Kriptocurrency ( talk) 23:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm interested in whether the "From the editor" will work. Not so much whether it's "correct" or needs copy editing. Any feedback appreciated. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 01:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have needed some acceptable boundaries set for while now, and I do think I see what you are trying to do.

I was trying to formulate my imagined response from a reader on an emotional level. The tone starts out very inviting and then maybe moves on to sort of admonish, and by the end delivers a warning. Not sure what will be taken by that. I think for those who have not participated in some of the weird stuff that's surrounded the publication, the second half will just be puzzling. But for those who have been, will they take it as a valid point/boundary setting? Or as a threat? I really don't know. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I may try to rework the ending - maybe even write a conclusion. BTW, while there is still work to do, we've got another pretty good issue (knock on wood). I love your gallery and you worked your way thru several things I got stuck on. Definitely thanks. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

↠Pine (✉) 07:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. If your are in Seattle, the address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bri, I need your assistance. I seem to be unable to see the latest messages published on my Talk page, I don't know why. I could only see them by inspecting the Edit history log, but not the actual published message on my Talk page. I'm not sure what's wrong, but I know there's something wrong. I hope you could assist me on this. Thanks.

Migsmigss ( talk) 00:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Migsmigss: the user C.Fred identified and repaired "broken code" on your talkpage here. It looks like an HTML comment wasn't terminated. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Bri. I just saw it moments ago. I was about to remove this message, but thank you for replying.

Migsmigss ( talk) 01:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bri. I've just nominated the article for deletion here. Is this the right avenue now? I'm sorry it's my first time initiating this process, and I'm still uncertain if this is the right step in initiating said process? Hope you could enlighten me a bit. Thanks.

Update: It seems like it is, as I see the article has a deletion nomination template now. Sorry for the bother, Bri. And thanks. :) Migsmigss ( talk) 01:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Bri, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, dawnleelynn (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.