User talk:Peteforsyth/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Courses Modules are being deprecated

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Hi. I'm curious why, when you restored Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you didn't restore the oldest three original revisions? I'll admit they aren't very useful, but I don't think they rise to the level of needing to be deleted. Full confession: I live in her district and voted for her. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, maybe that's what you were referring to with, tried to restore individual revisions. Got an error. Will explore via bugzilla, restoring to how it was for now.? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith, I'm just trying to put it back to how it was before I touched it. The basic problem is this: the edit history does not contain entries from the deletion log. So, it's easy for somebody who's not intimately familiar with MediaWiki to conclude that events not shown in the edit history did not happen. So, when they see that the article existed, and then an edit history line from Czar relating to deletion, they tend to erroneously conclude that Czar deleted the article. I think Czar's point is, it's better to have the original absent from the edit history entirely, than to have an edit history that misleads the vast majority of readers. Also, full confession: Given the opportunity, I"d vote for her too :) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• See discussion at Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#Does prehistory of this article demonstrate Wikipedia's male-white-hateful right-wing macho toxic self-obsessed cultist systemic bias? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Wow. I don't follow every detail that (but then again, discussions like those rarely make a lot of sense). If it really was copied from her campaign site, it's a copyvio. Reading the text, it sounds like it was. Not to mention User:Emass100's statement, so I copy-pasted the first two paragraph of her campaign website bibliography and posted it here.. So, I guess rev-del is the right thing, per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Ha! With this diff I think we are back where we started? Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene: Yes, I suppose so :) I had thought that was in there the whole time, and was surprised to see it wasn't. Seems worth a mention, no? If I remember correctly from one or two of the source articles, it seems that the proposal has come up a number of times over many decades... -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

welcome to Oregon
... you were recipient no. 1689 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Marshall

Thanks for contributing to the George Meredith discussion. In your comment, did you mean to say "Meredith" instead of "Marshall"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

SoPo &c

(continuing an off-topic discussion from WP:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District. I'm quite familiar with Portland. I have been aware of the 0xxx addresses for decades, long before anyone outside of greater metropolitan John's Landing knew about them. Frankly, I'll be sorry to see them go. Somewhere - I can't put my mouse on it right now - I've even started an outline of an article on the Portland adress numbering system. Most of it is WP:OR, but I should probably resurrect it sometime soon; with the 6th address numbering sector being implemented, the O and others may well do some historical articles that could provide the WP:RS needed. And, by the way, my personal opinion is that neologisms don't belong in WP, and the use of "sextant" in this context, although it has great frequency in the popular press, is a neologism as it clearly doesn't represent a 60 degree sector of a circle. I doubt I have any chance of winning that battle here, much less in the popular press. Sigh. YBG (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @YBG:, I'm sorry...I realized right after posting that Oregon articles are where I know your name from, and that you probably did know about that. I wanted to get it in anyway because I figure some in the discussion won't know, but I should have said it better. Anyway...just so I understand your suggestion better...are you saying that all (or undeveloped) articles about neighborhoods should be merged up to their quadrants? Or just this one specifically? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a general rule to upmerge small neighborhood articles into their address sector. But in the case of South Portland, it may make sense because the sector is a comparable size and because of the similarly titled articles about the address sector (South Portland, Oregon), the neighborhood (South Portland, Portland, Oregon), and the NRHP district (South Portland Historic District). Note especially that the 1st two titles give absolutely no clue as to their subject.

Back in 2015, I created an outline for an article about the Portland address numbering system. When the SoPo thing came up, I added it to WTORE and it got archived at WT:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 28 § Possible "South Portland" designation. I'd still like to see the article written, but finding RS seems daunting if not impossible.

And I'd really like someone to explain the Seattle system of 6 (or is it 9?) sectors. I've never understood it. YBG (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

autopatrolled and new page reviewer

• Amymcollier (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
• Ktcauliflower (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I noticed you granted autopatrolled and new page reviewer to two [1] [2] very new users who have not requested any of those rights at WP:PERM or expressed an interest in contributing to reducing the backlog at WP:NPP. Am I missing something? Vexations (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And extendedconfirmed ?? Have they been thoroughly warned about not doing anything that will get them sanctioned for violating 500/30 rules now that there is not a technical control? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW @Vexations: the new articles (created/moved to main from draft) do appear to be in decent shape, so 'autopatrolled' could be appropriate here. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I trust her not to do anything harmful with any of those privileges. Unless there's something you're not telling me, she hasn't. Autopatrolled, in particular, should help keep good new articles that don't need review out of the backlog. Amy has gone to unusual lengths to learn about Wikipedia standards, her new articles may not be perfect (nor are mine) but they will not violate any important rules. If there's a problem here, I'm not seeing it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You should explicitly warn these users that you have removed a technical control that will keep them out of trouble related to articles restricted by the arbitration committee to users with 500+edits and 30 days experience since you are insisting on adding extendedconfirmed early. This is generally only done for very odd edge cases (such as users working on specific interwiki translations) as it is a flag that is automatically added when the criteria is met. As far patroller (new page reviewer), if these users are going to actively be patrolling new articles please be sure they are aware of all the expectations and perhaps complete Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/School and learn about the Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, if they don't intend to actually patrol other peoples articles there is no need for that flag either as it will do nothing to help them edit better. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but I am concerned that they won't even know what NPP is and think that it may be appropriate for them to start reviewing new pages when the page curation tools pop up without having acquired the required knowledge of policy and experience. I don't think anyone should be given new page reviewer unless they ask for it and they meet the minimum requirements at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#New_Page_Reviewer. I see no signs that anyone has even told them that they have those rights and what they entail. Vexations (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away...I haven't "insisted" on anything. If there's a problem, I'd like to understand it -- all I meant above is that so far, I don't. That doesn't mean I'm not listening. I'm going out for most of the day, so I'll respond further at a later time, probably tomorrow. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! My tone on that came out wrong, stricken. Regarding the early ECP this would cover for example articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As newer editors, they should also be sure to take care with medium-high risk templates - even the ones that don't fall under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restrictions. Regarding patrol access: there have been some recent technical changes to the Special:NewPagesFeed that will prompt the page triage controls to pop up for 'new page reviewers' where it didn't used to (and they don't require a 'publish' action, just a click. That is why I suggested that if you want these new editors to be using page triage (really the only reason they would need the patroller flag) they should thoroughly review the patrolling directions and guidelines. Basically, my caution is to not set these newer users up to be bitten and possibly discouraged from contributing if they wonder unprepared in to areas where competence is required (and expected). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, no worries...Internet communication is always a little tricky :) After some thought, there are two general things that influenced my decision...or maybe 3:

1. This was not a conscious part of my decision, but I've been reflecting on the feedback you've both given, and I think it played a role. My general concept of "the wiki way" -- one of the big advantages I see with wiki software is removing impediments to doing stuff, and only introducing them when it becomes necessary. If you have a moment, please read this note I posted about my experience working on the Open Directory Project, aka DMOZ, after having been immersed in the wiki world for a while.
2. My lack of understanding of the full implications of each of the user rights. I try to follow technical developments as best I can, but I'm always a bit out of date...and I very well might be missing important nuances. So I welcome the opportunity to learn, and I thank you both for bringing it up.
3. Number 3 is a little different, but closely related to #1. In my extensive work training new users -- including teaching several courses, etc. -- one thing that is consistently weird for new users is when they get a notification that their new article has been "reviewed." I think the intent behind the notification is good, but the result is (at least in my experience) not what is intended. If somebody has taken the trouble to learn about Wikipedia's standards and so forth, getting a notification that their submission has been "reviewed" is usually off-putting. There's no accompanying feedback, and it usually leads to questions like, "why are people looking over my shoulder?" For somebody who has not taken the process of starting an article seriously, maybe it's an appropriate step; but it seems like extra friction for those who have.

In this case, both these users are highly diligent. I have worked with them enough to have a high degree of confidence in their abilities and intentions. I'm confident neither will do anything harmful as a result, and if by some chance I'm wrong, I'm happy to take responsibility for that judgment. I did inform them when I granted them these rights, though I probably didn't go into as much detail as you're recommending.

Number two is probably the most important part, and I'd be happy to put some time into addressing it. Maybe a good outcome from this discussion could be improving the page Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Granting and revoking user rights and those it links to, which I find a little difficult to parse.

On each of the rights:

• Auto-patrolled: I think this is the one that directly addresses #3 above. If somebody is already getting some guidance etc., I like to remove the need to get "reviewed."
• New page patroller: If that only gives them the ability to review new pages, and they're unlikely to actually jump in and do that, I can see your point that there's no reason to grant it, and I'm happy to stop granting that right.
• Extended confirmed: It sounds like the use of that protection level is much more tightly limited to highly controversial areas than I had realized. While I think it's highly unlikely either of these users would make problematic edits, I also don't see a huge need for granting that access...and I'm pretty sure both of them will get to that level on their own in due time. I'd be happy to stop giving out that access so freely.

So, maybe you could give me some feedback on whether I'm understanding the technicalities properly? If I am, I'd like to continue giving out autopatrolled access where it seems worthwhile, but I'm much less concerned about the other two, and would be happy to stop giving out those rights unless there's a compelling and well-understood need. What do you (both) think? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi there! If you are dealing with very very brand new editors that you think won't create a mess 'confirmed' can be good (especially if you are at an edit-a-thon!) since it has 2 huge advantages: (1) no CAPTCHAs (2)Can create an article. If you see that anyone (including newish editors) are creating new articles that meet basic acceptance standards, 'autopatrolled' is perfect since it reduces the work of new page patrol - meeting standards is important here because patrolled (reviewed) articles get their indexing flag toggled and search engines will pick up on them right away - if someone is making new articles with BLP issues, etc they should not get this until they learn how to make better articles. So in a nutshell: If you know someone isn't a vandal: confirmed is generally OK; If you know someone knows how to make a basic article without policy issues: autopatrolled is generally OK; pretty much everything else is more nuanced and there are trainings on most of them. If you are working with newer editors that want to work on a ECP protected page, encourage them to use edit requests on the talk page, they are heavily patrolled and processed with little backlog (e.g. User:AnomieBOT/EPERTable is a report). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Xaosflux for the detailed reply. I have no quarrel with what you're saying, and very much appreciate your helping me to understand the technicalities better. I plan to point this discussion out to Katie and Amy, and if they want me to remove any of the permissions I'm happy to; but it seems to me like the more valuable thing is that I'll have a better idea what permissions to grant in the future, and I'm not particularly concerned about these ones unless they want me to remove the permissions. (Note that both are more than halfway to ECP, with more edits/month in October than any previous month...so they'll be there soon enough anyway.) Does that seem right to you? Vexations, anything to add? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, it seems worthwhile to make sure the guide pages reflect the info you've shared here. I'm happy to do it myself, but would appreciate additional eyes on anything I do around this. I just pinged you both about adding "new page reviewer" to the Admin Guide, and I also wonder whether the guide for Extended Confirmed should mention the Arab-Israeli conflict stuff mentioned here (currently, it reads as a very straightforward right, and to me just sounds like a slightly more advanced version of ordinary "Confirmed" status without significant risks.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will follow up over there. For these 2, I wouldn't worry about revoking ECP - as it could require manually touching it again. Personally, I think NPR should be removed until such time as they actually want to pursue that area of maintenance. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Vexations: I was able to check with Amy and Katie, they considered and were not interested in "page reviewer" at this time, so I removed that right. Thanks again for talking me through this. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Peteforsyth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

• OAWiki
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Peteforsyth,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

You are cordially invited to Stanford University to celebrate Wikipedia's birthday

Join us in celebrating Wikipedia's 18th birthday at Stanford University!

I am delighted to invite you to the 2019 Wikipedia Day party at Stanford, which will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 5:00-8:30pm.

---

There will be pizza, cake, and refreshments; both newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome! We will have a beginner track with tutorials, and an advanced track with presentations, lightning talks, and tips and tricks. Admission is free, and you do NOT have to be a Stanford University student to attend.

---

Details and RSVP here • register here

---

See you soon! All the best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a 2019 / 2020 GLAM meetup scheduled?

Hey Pete! Hope you're well. Just wondering -- is there anything going on with GLAM? 3.5 years in and doing awesome things at the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History! Les733 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/DC/Wikimedia_Leadership_Bootcamp_2018

Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19

Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Rogue River Press

Hello, Peteforsyth. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rogue River Press, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added the draft template to the top of the page, which should stall deletion for a while. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Another Believer. In this particular case, I don't think the pub meets the notability threshold, so I probably won't work on it more. However, we will have a problem with lots of drafts we created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/States, many of which are just a few steps away from ready-to-publish. I'm trying to figure out the best way to proceed with those. Maybe a bunch of "touch edits" like you did here would be a good short-term solution as we work through the backlog. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Charlottesville Tribune

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Charlottesville Tribune".

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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability Initiative

The Sustainability Initiative

Hello Peteforsyth: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8

To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Battle Ground Reflector

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle Ground Reflector".

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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• New and expanded partners
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9

The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Oregon Jewish Museum, Thursday, March 7

The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary Blackmer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Blackmer 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/Gary Blackmer 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. GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

Why is there a phone number on your profile that is dedicated to Wiki? I haven't quite seen anything like it before in the time I've been here (I've mostly vigilantly observed; new to editing). Just curious. Graywalls (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Portland News-Telegram! I'm surprised we didn't have an article on this daily newspaper in Portland until last year. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Lord Bolingbroke. I was surprised to learn about it, I thought I knew about all the majorPortland publications over the years. This, the Portland Bee, and the Portland New Age were all interesting surprises. I hope to pull together more information about all of them. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Modern Mickey Mouse.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Modern Mickey Mouse.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-added, had been replaced without consideration of copyright. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Irrigon Irrigator

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Irrigon Irrigator".

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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mrs. O. Feigum

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mrs. O. Feigum".

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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 03:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:News Enterprise

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "News Enterprise".

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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hollywood Star

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hollywood Star".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Charlottesville Tribune

Hello, Peteforsyth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Charlottesville Tribune".

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 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! Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Oregon collapsing section top (open)

Template:WikiProject Oregon collapsing section top (open) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)