Thanks for the BarnstarEdit

Hi, and thanks for the Barnstar, although I have to admit that I never finished the history. Le Forestier wasn't easy to work from, and my mother came down with dementia before I got to the final days, which were itemised in tedious detail in the original French. I do hope to get back to it soon, and your encouragement has really cheered up my day. Thanks again. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-02Edit

21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-03Edit

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-04Edit

19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020Edit

Tech News: 2020-05Edit

18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Source suggestion for the article to be created "Workweek length reduction"Edit

Hi! :) I was browsing your user page due to having red that you are interested in economics. I reached this page and just remembered that I must have cited one author on a "work paper(?)[I'm not a native English speaker sorry :) ] that I did in 2016(?) for Economics II class on Law School... and I just found out that that paper is on my shelf :)
It seems that the paper is not longer online :/ I can't find it and wasn't archived on the original URL here. You may find the citation here here.
I still remember that it was a awesome source :D, unfortunately I had a negative note on the paper :P
I cited this source on a chapter called [translated from the portuguese]"Correlation between the increase of productivity and diminushing of the work schedule[workweek]". I presumed that if there is a reduced % of hours worked per week there is thus a need by companies to increase their labour ranks, thus reducing unemployment... if there is more people working and working less hours I concluded on the paper that there is an increase in productivity and real GDP growth.
In the paper I wrote and have in front of me, there is a quote by G. Houpis on the aboved stated paper:
"Our results suggest that reductions in hours of work are not likely to lead to an increase in the hourly wage and will therefore reduce umeployment by sharing any given volume of work among more people"
My commentary, that I wrote right now :P [Mr. G. Houpis... What about increased tax revenue coming from labor taxes? This value of taxes is positive and the reduced need to expenditure on social spending [e.g. unemployment benefits], also positive to the budget deficit... may lead to more money invested in infrastructures and education/health expenditure thus increasing real[?] or thus discounted with due inflation all wages].
I hope to have explain this suggestion of a source to you in a clear way :)
What do you think about it?
Ty! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@FranciscoMMartins: perhaps you want Workweek and weekend#Length? EllenCT (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Other suggestionEdit

Hi, again! :) Sorry for writing all this... :P I just remembered to share with you this article about minimum wage increase without unemployment increase, in Portugal: here. You may translated on google translator for example. If you find some "oddness" on said translation just ping me or contact me to franciscomartinsautor[@]
No problem in asking it to me! I really like economics... and I Portuguese... so I love portuguese economics, minus the part of the huge debt, corruption and all that :D FranciscoMMartins (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - January NewsletterEdit

This is our second newsletter and the first covering 2020, January.


  • We had our second online coordination meeting, minutes are available.[2]

Social mediaEdit

  • We started a Facebook group, Wikimedians for Sustainable Development Collaboration Group.[1]

Upcoming eventsEdit

  • 9 February - our third Online Coordination meeting.[3]
  • 6 March - We are giving a keynote at Open Belgium.[4]
  • 8 March - Several Wikigap events are being planned.[5]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC) • ContributeUnsubscribe

Tech News: 2020-06Edit

20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-07Edit

19:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-08Edit

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC notificationsEdit

EllenCT, for what it's worth, and this is just my opinion, I don't think your RfC notifications are very neutral.[[17]] Perhaps neutral is less the problem vs they aren't matter of fact. Certainly there is some debate about the quality of the sourcing but I'm not sure "strongly opposed" is a good description of the debate as we already have middle ground proposals. This isn't a case where one side says "MUST BE IN" while the other side says "NEVER BE IN". It's my feeling the notifications should just briefly describe the question at hand and not mention much else. I'm not really seeing the lack of good faith accusations but perhaps I just missed them. If you mean bias between editors again I'm not seeing that any more than a good faith disagreement. This is just my opinion and I don't want you to take it as anything more than something to contemplate. I hope you don't mind that I said it. Take care! Springee (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-09Edit

20:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Section links in LeadEdit

I've been looking for where section links in the lead are "forbidden" and have not found (or missed) it in WP:MOS and WP:MOSLEAD. Would you be so kind as to give me an idea where else I should look? Thanks.
I was not happy myself with them in the Electronic cigarette article, rather only included them in an attempt to mitigate the bloat of added words to the lead and hopefully direct others to editing the relevant existing sections, which themselves need much cleanup.

And speaking of leads, I have left a comment about EVALI on the E-Cig Talk page that I'd appreciate your comment on. I'm not a fan of the subject myself, thinking it was at the least "unfortunate" but it hospitalized thousands & killed 68 people so like it or not it's substantial, and it had world-wide impact on the confidence in E-Cig safety. As far as edits to the topic, it's clearly inflammatory and should get resolved for everyone's benefit, imo. Thanks. Jd4x4 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jd4x4: I thought for sure those were prohibited, but can't find any mention of them now. I asked at WT:MOSLEAD#Section links from intro paragraphs? and replied to the EVALI question on the article talk page. EllenCT (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: (Still have years to go to discover all these tags, lol) Thanks for looking. But, I didn't like them much myself so no biggie. Jd4x4 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle Kulinski (February 29)Edit

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is improperly sourced and an article about this subject was just deleted via a AfD discussion less than a month ago. I don't see anything that's changed in the past few weeks to suddenly make this subject notable.
Sulfurboy (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, EllenCT! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


I’ve closed this AN thread with a warning to you to not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point in the future. You can participate in the branding discussions all you want on meta, but please don’t make up threads that you instantly abandon and report back to meta as failed. Also please don’t needlessly elevate things outside of our normal process of dealing with disputes in order to make it seem like there is conflict here. Both are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I abandoned the AN thread, but my unblock efforts continue on User talk:SnøhettaAS#Proposed appeal. I don't think I am trying to prove a point, but I really want to know what point(s) you think I might be. If I had my first choice it would be to replace my binary meta RFC with the straw poll as I tried. Why doesn't Meta have something like WP:SNOW? EllenCT (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
You’ve perhaps been one of the strongest opponents of the branding effort there with the binary poll. An appeal that as an established user here you know should have known would be all but guaranteed to fail makes that effort look bad. You then instantly reported one comment by a non-admin back to meta as an appeal being declined. Brushing up community furor over paid editing is a pretty guaranteed way to make the branding effort even more unpopular, and it looks like you intentionally are trying to portray that we’ve blocked a company and that the community doesn’t support an unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The administrator requirements for an unblock are not just reasonable, they're more than generous, and I included all of them with a detailed explanation in my proposed unblock rationale for Leila. I believe it is feasible to shape the rebranding effort into a process which won't harm chapters or affiliates, is consistent with community desires, and satisfactory for the Foundation design and legal staff. I understand your concerns and am taking some time away from editing to think about how can cronicle the events so far. Furthermore, please understand that the Board hasn't published minutes for over a year, so how was anyone supposed to know they had already approved the rebranding? If you want to blame someone for the drama here, please blame the lack of Board transparency. EllenCT (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Basically, please don’t use as a tool in whatever you’re involved with on meta, which based on the above, it seems like you want to do that. They get mad when we export our dramah there. We don’t like it when meta drama is exported here either. Let the user appeal on their own, just like any other unblock. A lifting or decline to lift the block shouldn’t have any impact on whatever the WMF is doing. I’m not concerned where the board spends money. I am concerned about volunteer time on this project being wasted as part of some effort on meta that most people here don’t care about. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle Kulinski (March 1)Edit

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
Sulfurboy (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - February NewsletterEdit

This is our third newsletter covering February 2020. This issue has news related to SDGs 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 17.


  • We had our third online coordination meeting, minutes are available. (SDG 17) [1]


  • Wikimedia Australia works on bushfire related content. (SDG 13) [7]
  • Creative Commons have published a new book: "Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians". (SDG 4) [10]
  • The Sustainable Development Goals template that was used on the Wikimania wiki has been copied to meta [12] and also adapted to an inline version. [13] They should be easy to copy to other wikis as well. (SDG all)
  • There are now user boxes available on some projects. (SDG 17) [16]
  • The WHO Electronic Essential Medicines List (eEML) has been released under a Creative Commons Attribution license. (SDG 3) [20]

In the news

  • On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation (SDG 3) [11]
  • Does Biodiversity Informatics 💘 Wikidata? (SDG 14 & 15) [18]
  • Coronavirus in Wikipedia by language — visualized (SDG 3) [23]


  • Wikimedia Sverige has started a section on their website dedicated to the Sustainable Development Goals. (SDG all) [14]

Upcoming events

  • 2-6 March - Open Education Week. (SDG 4) [21]
  • 6 March - We are giving a keynote at Open Belgium. (SDG 17) [2]
  • 8 March - Several Wikigap events are being planned. (SDG 5) [3]
  • 11 March - Climate Justice Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, New York City, USA (SDG 10 & 13) [19]
  • [CANCELLED] - Wikimedia Summit 2020 cancelled due to global health risks (SDG 3) [22]

New properties on Wikidata

  • AnimalBase ID (SDG 14 & 15) [15]
  • Open Food Facts label (SDG 2) [17]

New Wikidata query examples

  • Number of cases of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus reported per country (SDG 3) [4]
  • Map of medical facilities in Kalimpong district, India, color-coded by type (SDG 3) [5]
  • Books related to LGBTI+ topics (SDG 5) [6]
  • Timeline of same-sex marriage legalization in various countries (SDG 5) [8]
  • Chart of the number of infections and deaths caused since the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, as reported by the World Health Organisation (SDG 3) [9]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) • ContributeUnsubscribe

The Signpost: 1 March 2020Edit

Salting DraftsEdit

Yes, drafts are occasionally salted, typically with Extended-Confirmed protection rather than full protection, if they are being repeatedly and tendentiously resubmitted, often by paid editors. It is sometimes necessary to salt them with silver nitrate. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: is the opposition to Kyle, the commentator, because of his political views? EllenCT (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. Wikipedia leans to left-center. Kyle is left of left-center, and is probably viewed as a Trotskyite by the loud right-wing minority in Wikipedia. My own opinion is that most of the loud right-wingers and some of the noisy left-wingers should be squelched under WP:ARBAP2, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
At this point the draft is a wounded monster and needs to be shot with silver bullets, but those are not cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Would you please refrain from referring to deleting BLPs in terms of weapons, intentional infliction of injury, or war on my talk page? What are your personal opinions on Kyle? Is he the sort of person around whom you would feel comfortable? What are your political views? Have you taken ? EllenCT (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
How is any of that relevant in the context of a repeatedly recreated article? Natureium (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Natureium: do you believe such context justifies the use of such language? Do you object to my questions about attitudes and motivations; if so, on what grounds? EllenCT (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that "silver bullet" is widely known to refer to a solution to a problem and to silly things such as legends about killing vampires. I find nothing wrong with this metaphor. And yes, I think demanding someone share their political views is inappropriate. Nothing he has said suggests that he is being motivated by politics. Natureium (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Does "most of the loud right-wingers and some of the noisy left-wingers should be squelched" imply politics? EllenCT (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to template you because I expect an editor with your tenure to know better but What are your personal opinions on Kyle? Is he the sort of person around whom you would feel comfortable? What are your political views? Have you taken this is nothing short of a personal attack, especially combined with your edit at the MFD implying that there was misconduct on RM's part. No one is under any obligation to divulge their personal feelings or political leanings. You know the rest of this song and dance, maybe you should take a few steps back and calm down before you wind up sanctioned or blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You think asking about those feelings is a personal attack? Doesn't that imply you know the answer? EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I did not answer the question about my political views because I was ignoring a casting of aspersions. If User:EllenCT asks any further questions about my political views or makes any inappropriate inferences, I may have to go to Arbitration Enforcement under WP:ARBAP2. When I recommended the squelching of right-wingers and left-wingers, my whole point is that politically motivated editors are a plague in Wikipedia, which has a neutral point of view. Does User:EllenCT really want to be one of the noisy left-wingers who needs to be silenced along with her opponents, or is she willing to put her political views aside and edit neutrally? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Responded at WP:AE#Preemptory review request. EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-10Edit

00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-11Edit

17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-12Edit

21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing while logged out to create an illusion of supportEdit

Don’t do that again. Stephen 09:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-13Edit

17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020Edit

Tech News: 2020-14Edit

17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - March NewsletterEdit

This is our fourth newsletter, covering March 2020. This issue has news related to SDGs 3 and 11.

Becoming a User Group

  • Wikimedians for Sustainable Development are recognized as a Wikimedia user Group [5]

In the news

  • Wikipedia is flooded with information — but it has a blind spot (SDG 11) [1]

New WikiProjects

  • Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19 (SDG 3) [9]
  • (Arabic) ويكيبيديا:مشروع ويكي طب/فريق عمل كوفيد-19 (SDG 3) [10]
  • (Czech) Wikipedie:WikiProjekt SARS-CoV-2 (SDG 3) [11]
  • (English) Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 (SDG 3) [12]

Academic studies

  • Uneven Coverage of Natural Disasters in Wikipedia: the Case of Floods (SDG 11) [2]


  • The COVID-19 pandemic halts all in-person events funded through the Wikimedia Foundation (SDG 3) [6]
    • Which lead to a renewed interest in remote events (SDG 17) [8]

Information from the Wikimedia Foundation

  • COVID-19 (SDG 3) [20]

The Sustainable Development Goals

  • The United Nations adopt changes to the Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (SDG-all) [7]

New Wikidata properties

  • GreatSchools ID (SDG 4) [4]
  • food energy (SDG 1) [14]
  • number of recoveries (SDG 3) [15]
  • number of clinical tests (SDG 3) [16]

New Wikidata example queries

  • Updated chart of the number of infections and deaths caused since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, as reported by the World Health Organisation (SDG 3) [3]
  • World map of hospitals (SDG 3) [13]
  • Notable people with COVID-19 by number of sitelinks (SDG 3) [17]
  • COVID-19 case statistics for India (SDG 3):
    • State-level map [18]
    • State-level line graph [19]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC) • ContributeUnsubscribe

Tech News: 2020-15Edit

19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-16Edit

15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-17Edit

18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020Edit

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - April NewsletterEdit

This is our fifth newsletter, covering April 2020. This issue has news related to SDGs 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15..


  • GLAM Newsletter Special report on COVID-19 (SDG 3) [1]
  • Wikidata and the bibliography of life in the time of coronavirus (SDG 3) [7]
  • Video: Wikidata Lab XXII - Wikiprojeto COVID-19 (SDG 3) [20]
  • How Wikipedia is Covering the Coronavirus Pandemic (SDG 3) [21]
  • Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic (SDG 3) [23]
  • Using CC Licenses and Tools to Share and Preserve Cultural Heritage in the Face of Climate Change (SDG 11) [25]
  • Video: Mapping against COVID-19 (SDG 3) [26]
  • Student-created immunology content on Wikipedia receiving a lot of attention this month (SDG 3) [34]
  • How Wikipedia shows disability matters (SDG 10) [35]


  • COVID-19 dashboard (SDG 3) [2]
  • COVID-19 dashboard for Tunisia (SDG 3) [22]

In the news

  • Why Wikipedia Is Immune to Coronavirus (SDG 3) [3]


  • Why and how medical schools, peer-reviewed journals, and research funders should promote Wikipedia editing (SDG 3) [4]
  • A protocol for adding knowledge to Wikidata, a case report (SDG 3) [5]
  • Multilingual enrichment of disease biomedical ontologies (SDG 3) [6]

New Wikidata properties

  • FHF establishment ID (SDG 3) [8]
  • FHF hospital group ID (SDG 3) [9]
  • Spanish National Catalog of Hospitals ID (SDG 3) [10]
  • Forest Stewardship Council Certificate Code (SDG 9) [24]
  • Forest Stewardship Council License Code (SDG 9) [27]
  • Psocodea Species File ID (SDG 15) [28]
  • Swedish Glaciers ID (SDG 13) [29]

New Wikidata query examples

  • Infectious diseases and their number of cases (SDG 3) [11]
  • The longest river that feeds into another river (SDG 6 & 14) [30]
  • Longest rivers that do not feed into a sea or ocean (SDG 6 & 14) [31]
  • Recently published works on COVID-19 (SDG 3) [32]
  • Welsh hospitals, health centres, doctors surgeries and temporary Covid19 hospitals (SDG 3) [33]

New Wikidata schema examples

  • pandemic (E184) (SDG 3) [12]
  • hospital (E187) (SDG 3) [13]
  • 2020 coronavirus pandemic local outbreaks (E188) (SDG 3) [14]
  • clinical trial (E189) (SDG 3) [15]
  • Lockdown (E190) (SDG 3) [16]
  • lockdown part of the 2019-2020 coronavirus disease pandemic (E191) (SDG 3) [17]
  • virus taxon (E192) (SDG 3) [18]
  • contact tracing app (E195) (SDG 3) [19]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC) • ContributeUnsubscribe

Tech News: 2020-19Edit

16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle KulinskiEdit

Could I have some clarification of your closure of this discussion?[53] Surely, the notability of a person is based on the sources that mention him, right? I'm not comprehending how Kulinski's "understanding of split votes" is relevant here. Do you still think Kulinski has notability as a public figure?Edittac (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Edittac: Did you read my closing comment? I can not in good conscience support the efforts of third party supporters under these circumstances. Whether I support someone's attempt to claim notability is entirely at my discretion, and I have standards including a minimum level of intelligence required. EllenCT (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-20Edit

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-21Edit

17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-22Edit

14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Partial blocks/NoticeboardEdit

  Wikipedia:Partial blocks/Noticeboard, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Partial blocks/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Partial blocks/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Aasim 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

responded. Very busy now; will return as soon as crisis concludes. EllenCT (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020Edit

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - May NewsletterEdit

This is our sixth newsletter, covering May 2020. This issue has news related to SDGs 3, 4, 5, 15 and 16.


  • Next meeting for Wikimedians for Sustainable Development is Sunday, 7 June 18.00-19.00 UTC (SDG-all) [17]


  • Wikimedia and COVID-19: April overview (SDG 3) [1]
  • Extract Knowledge from Wikidata to Wikipedia articles related to Coronavirus (SDG 3) [8]
  • How Wikipedia became a trusted source for COVID-19 information (SDG 3) [15]
  • Future Historians Will Rely on Wikipedia’s COVID-19 Coverage (SDG 3) [16]
  • Students document workplace health risks on Wikipedia amidst global pandemic (SDG 3) [18]

New Wikidata properties

  • COVIDWHO ID (SDG 3) [2]
  • DGHS facility code (SDG 3) [3]
  • DPVweb ID (SDG 15) [4]
  • RPPS ID (SDG 3) [5]
  • hardiness of plant (SDG 15) [9]
  • hardiness zone (SDG 15) [10]
  • voting system (SDG 16) [11]
  • DPE school code (SDG 4) [12]

New Wikidata query examples

  • Map of countries receiving the Nobel peace prize (SDG 16) [6]
  • Map of geolocated Argentine libraries (SDG 4) [7]
  • Map of hospitals (blue) and health centers (green) of Argentina (SDG 3) [13]
  • Map of National parks in Sweden (SDG 15) [14]
  • Universities ranked by PageRank on English Wikipedia (SDG 4) [19]

New Wiki projects

  • Wikidata:WikiProject Schools (SDG 4) [20]
  • Swedish Wikipedia: Projekt HBTQI (SDG 5) [21]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC) • ContributeUnsubscribe

Tech News: 2020-23Edit

22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-24Edit

21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

A year ago ...
on democracy
... you were recipient
no. 2223 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-25Edit

21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for commentEdit

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-26Edit

18:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)



I am writing to you today because you write at m:Request for comment / Should the foundation call itself Wikipedia that Wikimedia should not be renamed. Now It is possible to take part in an official online survey until June 30th. Please take your time and save Wikimedia!

Thank a lot and best regard! --JohnDoe06.2020 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020Edit

Tech News: 2020-27Edit

16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - June NewsletterEdit

This is our seventh newsletter, covering June 2020. This issue has news related to SDGs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16 and 17.


  • Upcoming: 5 July, Wikimedians for Sustainable Development online meeting (SDG 17) [12]
  • Upcoming: 18 July, Wikimedians for Sustainable Development online meeting (SDG 17) [12]
  • Past: 7 June, Wikimedians for Sustainable Development online meeting (SDG 17) [13]


  • Webinar: COVID-19 and human rights: How to share the facts on Wikipedia (SDG 3) [1]
  • Vad menas egentligen med öppenhet? (Swedish) (SDG 4) [2]
  • How Wikipedia Has Responded to the George Floyd Protests (SDG 10) [3]
  • 50 000 kvinnor på svenskspråkiga Wikipedia! (Swedish) (SDG 5) [4]


  • COVID & health topics on Wikidata (SDG 3) [9]

New Wikidata properties

  • curriculum topics (SDG 4) [5]
  • ISCO-08 occupation code (SDG 8) [6]
  • FEMA number (SDG 2) [7]
  • Democracy Index (SDG 16) [10]

New Wikidata query examples

  • Species of birds (SDG 15) [8]
  • Wikidata Queries around the SARS-CoV-2 virus and pandemic (SDG 3) [11]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC) •  ContributeUnsubscribe

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for commentEdit


Your feedback is requested at Talk:Adrian Zenz on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-28Edit

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Terrible tasteEdit

Proposed new Flag of Mississippi in accordance with legislative requirements. Trademark lawyers unhappy about the puzzle piece? How about an eagle?

...and yet it still wouldn't be the worst US state flag. CMD (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: High praise indeed! <3 I know you can do better, can't you? EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I object to being required by law to make a bad design. CMD (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: You can replace the puzzle piece logo with an eagle and write the motto on a ribbon in its talons, beak, or just draped over its bird-shoulders, or just fluttering around for that matter. EllenCT (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-29Edit

16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-30Edit

19:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-31Edit

13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - July NewsletterEdit

This is our seventh newsletter, covering June 2020. This issue has news related to SDGs 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15 and 16.


  • Upcoming: Wikimedians for Sustainable Development online meeting August 2 (SDG all) [19]
  • Upcoming: Wikimedians for Sustainable Development online meeting August 16 (SDG all) [20]
  • Past: Wikimedians for Sustainable Development online meeting July 5 (SDG all) [18]


  • Another Wikipedian is cultivated (SDG 3) [1]
  • Wikijournal of Medicine to be indexed in SCOPUS (SDG 3) [2]
  • How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice (SDG 10) [3]
  • Sask. doctor keeps COVID-19 Wikipedia info accurate with encyclopedic dedication (SDG 3) [4]
  • We stand for racial justice (SDG 10) [10]
  • Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism (SDG 10) [15]
  • WikiProject Black Lives Matter (SDG 10) [16]
  • The Power of Knowledge: A Look at the AfroCROWD Juneteenth Conference on Civil Rights (SDG 10) [24]
  • #WikiHerStory: a month-long initiative to amplify gender equity work on Wikimedia projects (SDG 5) [25]
  • How the internet will change our coronavirus memories (SDG 3) [26]
  • How volunteers created Wikipedia’s world-beating Covid-19 coverage (SDG 3) [30]
  • COVIWD - A Covid-19 Wikidata dashboard (SDG 3) [31]


  • COVID-19 research in Wikipedia (SDG 3) [11]
  • A Quantitative Portrait of Wikipedia's High-Tempo Collaborations during the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic (SDG 3) [12]
  • COVID-19 mobility restrictions increased interest in health and entertainment topics on Wikipedia (SDG 3) [13]
  • A protocol for adding knowledge to Wikidata, a case report (SDG 3) [14]


  • Wikimedia Research: Medical knowledge on Wikipedia (SDG 3) [23]
  • More black stories need to be told -- and more black contributors need to tell them! (SDG 10) [29]

New WikiProjects

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives Matter (SDG 10) [17]

Featured content

  • Alpine newt (SDG 15) [5]
  • Dementia with Lewy bodies (SDG 3) [6]
  • Secretarybird (SDG 15) [7]
  • List of procyonids (SDG 15) [8]
  • List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Berkshire (SDG 15) [8]

New Wikidata properties

  • thefreedictionary medical term ID (SDG 3) [21]
  • Naturvårdsverket Anordningar OBJECTID (SDG 15) [22]
  • public transport stop (SDG 11) [27]
  • energy consumption per transaction (SDG 7) [28]
  • BTI Governance Index (SDG 16) [32]
  • BTI Status Index (SDG 16) [32]
  • distribution map of taxon (SDG 15) [34]
  • Queensland Biota ID (SDG 15) [35]
  • Australian Weed ID (SDG 15) [36]


This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC) • ContributeUnsubscribe

The Signpost: 2 August 2020Edit

Tech News: 2020-32Edit

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evan Rachel WoodEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Evan Rachel Wood 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 EllenCT -- EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020Edit

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violations on the page Talk:2020 Beirut explosions, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@TonyBallioni: where is the discussion about this sanction? EllenCT (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You are topic banned from discussing the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.. You violated that in this discussion as a whole, which you returned to in the middle of an appeal against the sanction, and you violated it particularly egregiously in this diff where you have a quote discussing the actions of a businessman in relation to an agricultural chemical.
This is a discretionary sanction, so no discussion is needed for me to block. I’m enforcing the previous sanction in my discretion as an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: am I allowed to discuss my appeal of those sanctions? EllenCT (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m not really sure how that’s relevant. You were discussing a topic you were banned from (people/businesses and agricultural chemicals.) I don’t know if we have a rule on it, but I’m just going to say no: you may only discuss your appeal with the sanctioning admin or at the appeal itself. That seems to be a bright line, which is probably best. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: do you feel comfortable discussing the purported evidence which led to my sanctioning? EllenCT (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I’ve already linked to it above. You started a discussion about the actions of organizations broadly speaking related to an agricultural chemical and you quoted a source that specifically discusses one individual’s actions involving an agricultural chemical. There’s not much more to say beyond the diffs. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you reasons for and against those sanctions? EllenCT (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know what that means. You violated a topic ban that was an ArbCom discretionary sanction. You were generally being disruptive by edit warring with Stephen to restore another topic ban violation. Since AE bans tend to be more strictly enforced; I enforced it. The other disruption made me think a week was more appropriate than a few days, but it’s a fairly straightforward block. Anyway, if you wish to appeal read the instructions above. As this is a discretionary sanction, it has to be appealed to either WP:AE or AN. I’d suspect AE would probably be where this would go because the ongoing discussion at AN led to this, but that’d be something any admin who copies over a potential appeal could figure out. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion you were involved in, I agree that you clearly violated the AE sanction by discussing the actions of an individual with regards to agricultural chemicals. In addition, you are topic banned by community consensus from the subject of economics, and in one of your very own comments you state This is an economic question as well as a practical matter., so you have by your very own admission violated your community sanction as well. You are not permitted to discuss either of those topics anywhere on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Are you familiar with all the times I tried to appeal those bans? EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I was not notified of any such instances, but that does not matter. Unless the appeal succeeded, you remain bound by them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is my tentative proposed draft appeal of the restrictions, not the block:

@TonyBallioni: you mentioned "other disruption" above. I admit to have fallen to the temptation of sarcasm on at least one and likely other occasions, and would like the opportunity to address any and all of your critique of my behavior that I hope you will please share with me so that I can respond to the totality of the accusations.

@Dennis Brown: you concurred with Tony in the recent WP:AN discussion. I believe I would greatly benefit from your and anyone's full critiques of my recent behavior. Thank you all. EllenCT (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: how would you feel if I tried to appeal the restrictions while leaving the block in place as a courtesy to Tony, who I am sure could not have been familiar with the legion details? EllenCT (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of writing an appeal like the one above, which obviously will not succeed? --JBL (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: why do you think it is weak? EllenCT (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The block is an arbitration enforcement block. This means that I could not reverse it even if I felt unblocking was warranted (which, for the record, I do not; the block was valid, so there is no "courtesy"). If you wish to appeal the block, follow the instructions provided in the block notice and at the guide to appealing blocks, specifically those relating to AE blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you willing lengthen my block to six months so that I can meet the requirements of this recent suggestion from WP:AN? If the editing-during requirement is necessary I could agree to confine myself to Meta, Simple, Wikiversity, or Wikisource. EllenCT (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Six months of otherwise productive editing does not mean six months not editing at all. Edit something other than the problem areas, and quit skating up to the line. Go edit about Charles Dickens' books or Russian dance or chemical elements or literally anything else. Anything but the stuff that keeps landing you in trouble. Do that well for six months, and maybe the community will be willing to consider relaxing the restrictions. But not editing at all for six months shows nothing to base that off of. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, If I confine my edits to [118] or forks, would you consider that not editing at all? I have some things I'd like to do there a whole lot more than Dickens, and they have the benefit of being offwiki. Even if they weren't, they have nothing more to do with economics than castes, politics, ethnicities, gender, or any of the other categories of disputes. If I focus on those efforts for the time being, I am confident I can complete six months of productive editing without even the appearance of infringing on the topic bans. Avoiding further sanctions is a top priority of mine at present. EllenCT (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
why do you think it is weak? My observations of block/ban discussions at WP:AN/I are: relitigating the original grounds for the block fails almost always; commenting on the behaviors or mindsets of other users fails essentially always; not clearly identifing what was problematic about one's behavior fails essentially always; and not clearly identifing how one will avoid repeating the problematic behavior fails usually. Perhaps three or four sentences at most of what you've written could be useful in an appeal, but they are also the sentences that lack specificity. Overall, it suggests that you have not made any attempt to see things from the point of view of those who have found your behavior problematic. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I have not asked to be unblocked, and the reasons for the t-ban and block are water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. I don't want a discussion of their merits to occur now or in my appeal six months from now. I am not sure whether I have commented on the behaviors or mindsets of others, and I have been trying to avoid doing so. I know exactly what was problematic about the original behavior leading up to the t-bans, and the behavior leading up to the block. Again as below, I wish I could say with certainty that I knew how to avoid similar offenses forever. I believe I can for at least six months. My tentative plan to avoid the problem behavior is to wait while distracting myself with a mathematically generalized approach to nullifying the problems I have encountered, and then appeal.
My discussion about the subjectivity of the criteria shows that I fully understand that my point of view is not only different from those who may be offended by my behavior, but that the only way for me to decide what is and is not allowed under the t-bans is to make an independent judgement of whether I think those other people would believe that a given concept, in a given situational context, is or is not too closely related to economics, the motivations of Wikipedians, or agricultural biochemistry. That necessarily requires me to try to see others' points of view. I'm just not competent enough to reliably predict where everyone draws the line. If it wasn't for the Beirut explosion I probably could have gone another five or ten years without anyone getting angry enough to ask that I be blocked. EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • EllenCT, since you asked for a full critique of your recent behavior, I think this endless thread on your talk page is indicative of an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior and tendentious editing that, if persisted in here, will end up in an even longer block (two weeks or a month) for WP:DE. You are under two topic bans, and you have repeatedly broken them recently, and have been blocked for that. Stop arguing about that (unless you want a longer, DE block). And when your block ends, wait at least six months before you appeal either of the topic bans, which because of your recent repeated violations are not likely to be removed upon appeal. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope Tony and Dennis will provide their detailed critiques with specific offenses if they go beyond yours generally. I'm sorry I offended you. I know what I did wrong, but I don't know how to keep from doing it again, yet. I intend to learn. I will do what I can to minimize disruption whomever the cause. EllenCT (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
"I know what I did wrong, but I don't know how to keep from doing it again, yet." Don't violate your topic bans (see WP:TOPICBAN), which are very clear. If you don't know how to keep from doing that, then you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia and will not last long here. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I admit I lack sufficient competence to uphold subjective requirements by myself, so I would rather work on productive edits to areas where I am not restricted for a period of at least six months. Meanwhile I can restrict myself to productive efforts here designed, for example, to avoid anything more than 10% related to economics than 20% (given a uniform distribution of concept relatedless.) EllenCT (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The topic bans are not "subjective"; they couldn't be clearer. And concerning economics, since 23 June 2016 you have been indefinitely banned from the topic of economics, broadly construed, so many if not most of your edits to your sandbox since then [119] are violations of the topic ban, and should be reverted. If there is an edit or post that you want to make anywhere on Wikipedia that you believe might breach your topic ban, simply ping an administrator from your talkpage, or contact them via email, and ask before posting. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to segregate my pre-tban sandbox into the areas I wanted to improve but were not specifically related to economics, and those which also needed to wait because they were also more directly about economics. I know I made at least one edit, but the reason the items are still on the sandbox because that is partly my list of things to do when I am allowed to. I'd rather wait the six months doing other stuff than try to retroactively second guess where others draw the line. EllenCT (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You still don't get it. You are not allowed to post or edit anything about economics, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia -- not in your sandbox, not on Jimbo's talkpage, not in other people's talkpages, not in an external link to something off-wiki. (Not even on your own talkpage except possibly for an occasional ping to an admin asking if something would be a violation.) This is what you've added (via 9 separate edits) to your sandbox since your sanction was enacted on 3 June 2016: [120]; multiple edits are about economics broadly construed. Here are the specific edits that refer to economics broadly construed: [121], [122], [123]. All three of those edits were violations of your topic ban, and all three of them should be reverted. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I can't revert them while blocked. I do not want to be accused of trying to cover up my transgressions. I'm not sure putting things I want to edit when my t-ban expires in my sandbox, or communicating with people on their talk pages, will be seen as an impediment to overturning the bans if I can avoid further transgressions for six months. EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Then revert them when your one-week block expires, because they are violations of your topic ban. And do not post about economics broadly construed anywhere on Wikipedia going forward, because all of those things were violations, and led to this current block. So you will need to edit elsewhere, constructively and without tendentiousness or drama, for six months before appealing either of your topic bans. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • When you think that you've done nothing wrong, but most everyone else thinks you have, then you have lost objectivity of your own actions. I'm not sure I "agreed" with anyone, I was the first to say I would oppose lifting the sanctions based solely on your comments there, not any input from anyone else. Even when you disagree, when the vast majority of people see a problem with your editing, you need to find it within yourself to step back and examine your behavior. If you still can't find the problem, you need to accept that you can't see the problem that others can, instead of taking the stand that "everyone is wrong except me", which is an unhealthy perspective. The list of permanently banned editors is littered with editors that thought exactly the same, that everyone was wrong except them. I would prefer you not join them on that list. You have an activist streak in you, which is fine (and in the right environment, admirable) but it is problematic when you are collaborating in a project like this, that strives for neutrality. Either you find a way to work on articles that aren't related to your passions, or you are going to be seeing more problems until you ultimately get banned. I have strong feelings about a number of topics, but I have avoided those areas intentionally (as an editor and from using the admin bits), for over 14 years now, because I'm aware my biases would only lead to trouble and go against the greater objectives of Wikipedia. I don't expect anything to come of this paragraph, but you asked, and all I can do is sincerely answer. Staying out of trouble is fairly simple: If a topic raises your blood pressure, avoid it at Wikipedia. You hurt your cause, and Wikipedia, when you don't. Dennis Brown - 10:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. As I wrote above, I know what I did wrong. I wish I hadn't. I wish I could say with certainty that it will never happen again, but contrary to the Guide to Appealing Bans, the most I can say is that I will make an effort for a six month concrete goal before appealing the t-bans. I am sure I can keep from further transgressions for six months if I focus on the relationship between [124] and [125]. EllenCT (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You have more than ample ability. The key is staying away from topics where you have strong feelings. Leave those topics for forums or other venues. That alone would solve most or all the problems with conflicts. That's the same advice I give myself, and everyone else, so it isn't unique to you. Dennis Brown - 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-33Edit

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Regus workshop has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Regus workshop. Thanks! Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Thank you, too! That is exactly the kind of feedback Kate needs but I have been too timid to demand. How would you like to take over dealing with her requests of me at Draft:Regus workshop? Lots of it is unencyclopedic, but there are more than a few items which reasonably belong in the history, are there not? EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@KatherineBusby2019: while I am blocked, please depend on Guy for guidance. EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Got it, thank you. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@KatherineBusby2019: I'm excited about Guy's demand for independent publications. Where are the sailboat race-sized bounties in IWG/Regus journalism? Is the Pulitzer committee cashing your checks? EllenCT (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: Nope, none of that. Like it or not, the world is thinking about offices right now and IWG is not doing any kind of proactive PR. On that note, I would have thought the Financial Times was an independent-enough publication to use as a source. They recently quoted IWG plc in their report of suburban working trends, brought on by the pandemic. Ref: Is this what you're looking for? KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@KatherineBusby2019: it just seems like since they had to cancel the Olympics, you would help your company and others by supporting more independent journalism. Remember when articles like that used to be free? It won't even let me read it without renewing my subscription. But lets say you gave ten million dollars to the Pulitzer committee, I wonder if that would even qualify. I don't understand enough about what other people think is noteworthy. EllenCT (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)