Open main menu

HomeBarnstars, Badges, & User Boxes Barnstars, Badges, & User BoxesTalk to me Talk to meCreations Creations


American Pacific Whaling CompanyEdit

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)

This might helpEdit

(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)

Seattle Wiknic 2019Edit

Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
In the Seattle area?
Wiknic logo.svg
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Your draft article, Draft:Seed to sale tracking systemsEdit

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)

First Avenue (Seattle)Edit

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). SounderBruce 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. SounderBruce 00:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

miles okazakiEdit

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)

Sorry re requestEdit

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)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Bri,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

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

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

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)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

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)

Castle Game Engine: edited and removed request for deletionEdit

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)

Castle Game EngineEdit

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 Face-smile.svg. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Your 2007 edit to Conversational Monitor SystemEdit

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)

Respiratory ProtectionEdit

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 has been nominated for discussionEdit

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)

Regarding wrapupEdit

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.[1] I'll let you two work it out. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15Edit

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • September 2019

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)

SignpostEdit

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)

Signpost Barnstar Hires.png 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)


Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Request for Assistance on Noticed Vandalism and Editing BiasEdit

proceeding at User talk:Seandotng
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Bri.

I'm asking for assistance for you to look into the edits and reverts by User:Seandotng on pages:

1. Kevin Liliana 2. Vanessa Ponce 3. Jolene Marie Rotinsulu 4. Jesica Fitriana

for the following reasons:

1. I have updated information on these pages wholly sourced and referenced (provided articles from legitimate news/media outlets/outfits for each update), but this contributor keeps on reverting these edits to the previous ones that are un-sourced and un-clarified

2. He has erased a paragraph of wholly sourced information on the Kevin Liliana page without valid reason, only stating that "It is not needed for the bio" when it is factual.

3. This is just an observation but I think he is leaning on editing bias, as I have observed that he only edits mostly Indonesian beauty titleholders. I am not going ahead of myself here and I am still not wholly particular with editing biases within Wikipedia, but I think I've read that anyone related to the organization or the person in question (subject of the page/article) should be looked into as they might be biased in editing. Again, I am not concluding that he is, but his actions can only be interpreted as leaning on bias.

4. His reverts are mostly, if not all, invalid, reverting updates/edits that are aptly sourced and referenced and preferring instead the old edits without ANY sources or references.

I am still learning my way here on Wikipedia, but I hope to contribute and contribute well. I am trying to edit with only facts, and with factual neutrality. But I will not stand for contributors who are editing only with biases.

Thanks. I hope to hear you soon on this.Migsmigss (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SummariesEdit

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)

Editing as Activism: Edit-A-Thon to Correct Systemic Bias in WikipediaEdit

Allen Library, location of the Research Commons, University of Washington. Photo by Joe Mabel
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

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
Cascadia
Wikimedians
User Group

Need Help To Review DraftEdit

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)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration reportEdit

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)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Bri,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 726 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jordan Evans (politician) for deletionEdit

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)

Military stress cardEdit

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/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/w/index.php?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)

Miss Universe 2019Edit

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 RemovalEdit

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)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Womxn Artists of the Pacific NorthwestEdit

AF Logo.jpg
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.
  1. ^ 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)

Edit

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)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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)

HYPR Corp UPE templateEdit

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)
Return to the user page of "Bri".