User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Question from Clovermoss

I've noticed that your edit summaries include "this edit is not an endorsement of the WMF". I checked your talk page archives but it was mostly people suggesting that you not do it (unless I missed something). I'm not really trying to convince you to change anything, I'm just curious as to the why. Personally, I've had great interactions with WMF staff the past few months, but I realize that not everyone feels the same and there's a lot of precedent for why things are that way. Do your reasons fall under what's outlined in this essay or are they different? Again, not trying to convince you to change anything, I just want to understand. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

My objections to the WMF's actions go far beyond that. I assume you've looked at what I wrote above about their lack of respect for us? At the Signpost article "Wikipedia has cancer"? And at my response at the Arb request? Searching my archives, I find my first response to a query about my edit summaries here in my archives; a little way up the page, you'll see Ritchie333 asking about it, and that was also meant as an answer to him. I tracked down the time I was taken to AN/I over my edit summaries; I explained at greater length there, and I'd previously done so in response to that editor's question and objection here; there are also sections higher on the page in that archive in response to Pigsonthewing, and lower in response to Deepfriedokra, Ianmcm, and Subtropical-man, in all of which I allude to the position of conflicted conscience in which I find myself in continuing to contribute here at all. (Writing new articles used to be a very important part of my activities here, even when I was an admin, and even, through AfC, when I attempted to leave the project. In addition to serving readers and assisting my fellow editors, it brought me joy. But I can't do that any more without appearing to forgive and endorse the WMF like a good little underling. So when I positively can't help myself, and have enough edits spare in the month, I put them in userspace. One of them has since been independently created by someone else; the others are still gaps in the encyclopedia, not that everyone agrees with my priorities in article creation of course.) I was looking for where I remember Floquenbeam asking me what it would take for me to stop adding the disclaimers to my edit summaries, and/or limiting my edits; maybe I misremembered or maybe it was in an e-mail. But my basic requirement would be an apology for what they did to Fram and the contempt they showed the community then ... but there's been further evidence of contempt since, and for all I know, further good editors and admins oublietted. The same talk page archive—this page is not very busy in recent years—also includes a barnstar delivered by Carrite on behalf of Vigilant at Wikipediocracy in response to other utterances I'd made about the WMF. I've been objecting to their actions regarding the user interface at least since they removed the Orange Bar of Doom without making any provision for unregistered editors to be notified of new talkpage messages. Some of their biases and actions feature in my retirement statement. And a couple of years ago I tried, of course in vain—I suck at politics and many members of the community like the WMF—to get us to fork. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) —Post-coffee, I saw you said you'dlooked through the archives, so sorry if this response was much too shallow. The short version is, I think the WMF are collectively too big for their booties, they're doing active damage to something very good (and a lot of good people) by actions and attitudes that stem from a fundamental attitude that they own and drive the projects, and I personally can't endure being associated with them. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response! I was okay with whatever you were willing to share. I don't see it as shallow, if that helps. I will say that out of the stuff you linked, I definitely missed the ANI thread. That must've been stressful. Something I always try to do when understanding other people and their perspectives is understanding the why. Anyways, I guess I'll explain my "why". If I had to pin my optimistic view of the WMF to something in particular, I'd likely blame my first issues with authority setting such an extreme example that pratically anything is better than comparison. This gives some background on what I went through when I was 13 (when I lost my faith and became a "mentally diseased apostate"), if you truly want to understand. I've also always tried to be an optimistic person so I like to believe that even if things are bad, they can change. As far as I can tell, you're not kicked off of Wikipedia simply for criticizing the WMF. They listen to any sort of feedback way more than the experience I had with my former religion. They even change things sometimes if enough people are upset! A low bar by most people's standards I suppose but it's something that gives me hope.

Most of my interactions with the WMF have been in improving the Wikipedia app so I identified a lot of issues just by observation. If you're interested, I also wrote a Signpost essay. I have a more current version in userspace, if you want to compare the two. While I was definitely shocked at the scale of some of my observations, I was impressed that my feedback was taken seriously and viewed as helpful. It helps to have your experiences validated and not dismissed. I stayed out of the massive community discussion surrounding WP:FRAM because I was a mostly-new editor at the time and I didn't really understand what was happening apart from that it was something that was a very big deal. I still don't understand what happened there as much as I would like to. But apart from that and the recent VECTOR2022 issue, I got the impression that WMF-community relations were somewhat improving over time? Is that only my personal perception, or would you say things have gotten worse during the same timeframe? Feel free to ignore my questions if you want to, but I am genuinely curious. As I said, I try to understand why people who have different opinions have them. Reasonable people can disagree and that contributes to more healthy discussions in my opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That must have been awful for you, and I'm glad they listened to you about the app; partly because many people are stuck editing on smartphones/tablets and don't realize they have the option of using the desktop editor instead, and there is a crying need for fixes! The thing is, though, the WMF is in no sense an authority over us (let alone on the order of a religious authority in a hierarchical religion). Yes, I believe WMF-community relations have been getting worse, not better. Since the Fram case, there has been somewhat more readiness to have communications lines such as the regular meetings Arbcom apparently has. That assuages the concerns of some editors, but the affronts continue (although yes, admittedly, I'm not aware of any more en.wp admins being desysopped and blocked without even being told why), and the attitude of superiority as if we work for them continues to be displayed by employees who don't have expertise in dealing with "the public". We members of the communities of the various projects (the WMF often tries to divide us) are not the public, and not customers like, for example, Facebook's users. We do the work that means they get to ask for money, and their organization is supposed to facilitate our work, that's its reason for existence. Not decide who gets to do that work or how it should be done or what values it should represent. And not make jobs for more people within their organization by trying to study us, by trying to bring in different kinds of editors, by trying to foist new software on us because they want to, or by running expensive junkets for their loyalists that in addition to undermining the projects, lead to people's offline identities being revealed, so that those who might be endangered by that (including a large fraction of women!) are disadvantaged when they seek to stay safe. (I'm actually located quite near San Francisco. Pre-pandemic, I could in theory have taken a day off work, hopped on a train, and gone to a WMF meetup. Their Bay Area meetups were always in secure buildings. Not in cafes or parks. That amounts to a doxx.) People have different issues and preferences; some really like face-to-face meetings, the chance of getting grant money, and the WMF is alluring as a place to work for many people, especially those not in the West because it says it is very open to remote work. But one of the big disconnects is that we volunteer to work on something online, and the WMF is at heart a meatspace company, the vast majority of whose employees just don't get that. Another is that we are volunteers not for the WMF, but for whatever project(s) we choose to work on, which for whatever reason, WMF as an organization either cannot or will not admit. Someone more familiar than I am with the jargon once told me the WMF's interests are orthogonal to the projects'. That may be the nutshell right there; it's a terminology I don't really understand, though. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

An interesting point about authority. I was going at it more from the train of thought where someone is actually in the power to change things and not nessecarily that they're "above" you. (Although we also have the power to change things somewhat :)) When you're at an unequal starting point and any disagreement whatsoever is not acceptable, that doesn't work. My argument was more along the lines of how ideally, genuine feedback isn't ignored and is listened to. At least in my experience, the WMF does try to listen to feedback, even if it's an understatement to say that this doesn't always go well.

I'll try to give a more in-detail response to other parts of what you wrote later. I worked late, it's past a reasonable hour for me, and I should really be heading to sleep. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose another reason I used the word "authority" is because you mentioned feeling like an underling, which is awful. For what it's worth, whenever I've seen your comments, I appreciate them. You shouldn't be made to feel like you don't belong here, because you are important. I think you made an interesting point about the WMF "bubble". There's a lot of stuff that goes on in the background (IRL, on other wikis, mailing lists, Discord, rarely watched pages, etc) that even when the WMF is trying to be open and transparent, they can get a somewhat skewed sample size of the larger community. The people most likely to participate there are also people who are more comfortable with sharing private information about themselves and more likely to be pro-WMF. There's also other things that can happen that inspired me to make my Venn diagram metaphor [1]. That is an example of not really caring about what the community has to say and just going along with their own plans. I'm intrigued by your concept of the employees trained in dealing with "the public". Could you expand on that? I've been pushing increased communication between the WMF and community members in the hope that my Venn diagram metaphor becomes less relevant. As for the Facebook and Reddit comparison, if we wish to be cynical, I think it can work. Afterall, those platforms are only profitable because their users make the content that people visit the website in the first place for. Wikipedia is a bit different because we have more humanitarian goals with the "sum of all human knowledge" but that shouldn't make us immune to criticism. You're right that the foundation does have a lot of money and fundraising campaigns have definitely caused me concern, even in the recent past. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The authority thing is, for me, the crux of the whole problem with the WMF. I'm probably being either cynical or very naïve when I talk about talking to the public; I try hard to differentiate between the WMF as an organization and individuals who just work for it, but I don't think there's an analogy with a social media company (whether widely criticized like Facebook or relatively benign like Reddit) that's useful. Not even with other non-profits like the Internet Archive. Not even with Dreamwidth, the only social media company where I participate (and also a non-profit.) The WMF was created after the fact, to serve us, the volunteers, but when it started to grow, those working for it were adopting a vision of its being the owner / operator / strategist. They aren't; they are largely irrelevant when they aren't being obstructive, but it must be incredibly hard to appreciate that when you work for an organization, let alone when you run it. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Huh, so the WMF was established in 2003 and Wikipedia started in 2001. I didn't actually know that the WMF came about 2 years later. I've always lived in a world with Wikipedia (I'm currently 20) so I think my perspective can sometimes be a bit skewed towards "this is how things have always been". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central

The gathering is in the vicinity of Grand Central Terminal. You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community and visitors from the global Wikimedia Foundation for our WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central, in-person at Convene 101 Park Avenue in the vicinity of Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This is somewhat of a sequel to last year's Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Brunch in terms of the participants, though this time it is an evening event in a different borough. We may leaven the event with a few impromptu lightning talks, a Wiki-fashion show (yes, really!), and likely an afterparty tour. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Wednesday March 8 WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central (RSVP off-wiki at Eventbrite to attend in-person). 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm (Convene 101 Park Avenue, near Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Stübing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Stübing, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Stübing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

not identifying

Good point. I'm more or less a Zen-Catholic, but I find such labels overly limited and inaccurate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Trøndelag arms

You said that the Trøndelag arms were inaccurate. Can you explain? Giltsbeach (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Trøndelag uses a very slim variant of the cross pattée (probably has a designation, but I was unable to find one). The file we were previously using was uploaded from a recognized source, and see the web presence for the county. I was unable to find any that looked like your version, but I've placed your version in the same Commons categories in case it's an unofficial or obsolete variant. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no such designations for the cross patté, which is why you can't find it. They're all considered one and the same. It's similar to how lions, eagles, oak trees, et cetera can vary in appearance from one emblazon to the next, but they are counted as the same coat of arms. If you would prefer the version closer to the one found on the county website I can go ahead and edit the arms to match. Giltsbeach (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You should have conformed your new version to the appearance in the official sources in the first place. But why not just continue to use File:Trøndelag våpen.svg, whose file description indicates that it is from official sources (and which is in use all over the projects, as I found when looking for a Norwegian article on the arms). Why are you seeking to replace the existing files for all these arms? This is the only one that appears to be inaccurate, but I don't understand why you wish to replace all these files in the first place. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I should have? My version matches the official blazon of "På sølv bunn et gull utbøyet kors", and it's quite common to have multiple versions of a coat of arms on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I would invite you to look here [2] for an example. I don't really understand your aggression. Giltsbeach (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you should have. Please stop deflecting questions by attributing emotion to others. It is uncivil. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I "attributed emotion" to you, whatever that's supposed to mean. Please link the policy covering coats of arms and we can go from there. Giltsbeach (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a start, thank you :-) You shouldn't deviate from an official coat of arms by reinterpreting it from the baseline heraldic description just because no explicit Wikipedia policy forbids it. That goes for many things not explicitly forbidden, including replacing existing files with your own without a good reason, but in this instance it can be compared to making your own version of a trademark. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If there's no policy to reference then there's nothing to discuss. Have a good day. Giltsbeach (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Here is proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+cruise%27+children&rlz=1C1CHZN_trTR973TR973&sxsrf=APwXEdc9TPNtLBptFnzJ4nEoJ_PtSWurrw%3A1682536159748&ei=33ZJZL_LLPiNxc8P1baTwAQ&ved=0ahUKEwj_tv3Qn8j-AhX4RvEDHVXbBEgQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=tom+cruise%27+children&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIHCCMQsAMQJzIHCCMQsAMQJzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQigUQsAMQQzIKCAAQigUQsAMQQzINCC4QigUQ1AIQsAMQQzINCAAQ5AIQ1gQQsAMYATINCAAQ5AIQ1gQQsAMYATIPCC4QigUQyAMQsAMQQxgCMg8ILhCKBRDIAxCwAxBDGAIyDwguEIoFEMgDELADEEMYAjIPCC4QigUQyAMQsAMQQxgCSgQIQRgAUOwDWMAOYI8VaAFwAXgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAoAEByAESwAEB2gEGCAEQARgJ2gEGCAIQARgI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that search only shows that he's commonly referred to as Tom Cruise. To say it's his legal name, we would have to have a reference saying that he officially changed it from his birth name. (I looked for one before reverting you.) Especially in abiography of a living person, we have to make sure we have a source for everything we say, and in this case you seem to have got confused; he uses "Tom Cruise" professionally, but that's not the same thing as it being his legal, official name. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

wait, the link I sent you doesn't prove it? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. It shows only that he is normally referred to as "Tom Cruise". Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giltsbeach (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

i started a discussion about your edits that had no consensus. Giltsbeach (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy

In this edit [3] the source does not support your claims. Do you have another source you're pulling from? If so, please cite that source. Otherwise, please do not add your own opinions into the article. Giltsbeach (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion here [4] about the inaccuracies of your edits and made some proposals to prevent errors in the future. Your involvement is welcome. Giltsbeach (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You again inserted misinformation into the sable article. Are you reading the source material before inserting information into the article? Giltsbeach (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Poetic meanings

Is there any rhyme or reason why you specifically focused on jewels, plants, and flowers? What about the other methodologies? Are you planning on expanding these? Giltsbeach (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Eva Mendes

correct the current hatnote. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
• Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
• Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Death-positive movement and the problem of optimal coverage

Hi Yngvadottir -- I hope you're well. I've been mulling over a coverage issue recently that I couldn't identify a clear location to raise concerns at, and I noticed by coincidence recently that you'd written the related article Death Cafe; given I recognize you for your great experience in content matters, I thought it might be useful to ask you.

I've been working a lot recently on Dark Archives, which given the author has required several links to death-positive movement. I discovered the first time around that this isn't actually a stand-alone article, but a subtopic of The Order of the Good Death. This is the only time I can think of where we treat a philosophy or movement as a subtopic of an organization -- WP:NORG's usual interpretations mostly put it the other way around. I discovered when looking into it that this was an almost completely undiscussed merge executed by one editor. I don't have a sufficiently deep interest in the subject to write articles I'd consider good-enough for either topic, but I link them both separately in Dark Archives, and it doesn't seem right for the philosophy to be subtopiced to the organization. Do you have thoughts on what might be the best way to cover these topics? this talkpage section not an endorsement of the WMF :) Vaticidalprophet 03:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Vaticidalprophet, and thanks for the compliment! As with most things I write about on Wikipedia, I'm very far from an expert in the area. But as indicated by the overlap in intention and format between Death Cafes and Death Salons, I share your sense that there should be a broader death-positive movement article, and therefore that the redirect should be undone. Subject, of course, to finding sources that can reasonably be said to be about the same movement. I think what's happened is a bit of parochialism, with that article dealing only with the US and missing similar ideas in other places (it does look rather as if it was split off from The Order of the Good Death and Caitlin Doughty, as was suggested at the merger discussion), and that although the term itself is said to have been coined by the Order of the Good Death, it shouldn't be hard to find other groups saying similar things. Writers such as Rosenbloom may well already have mentioned them, just as Jon Underwood acknowledged his death cafes began in the tradition of Bernard Crettaz' cafés mortels. That said, the reinstatement of the independent article needs to be done with references ready to go, to demonstrate that the concept extends beyond the Order of the Good Death. It may be a good idea to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death; the project appears to still have participation, and I see no evidence in its archives that the merger discussion was advertised there, which is probably a big reason there was little or no discussion.

For clarity and in case anyone has strong views, the history I've found is:

• The Order of the Good Death was started by Bri in 2014, and looked like this after what I think was their last substantive edit there.
• Death-positive movement was started by Feliciapulo (who appears to have stopped editing) on 24 March 2018. It was edited a number of times that day, and last looked like this.
• The merger proposal was made by Dennis Bratland, who then made two edits to the article. His argument (at Talk:The Order of the Good Death) adduces evidence that would probably make a good basis for reinstating the article with a broader focus. Were I him, I would have rewritten the article rather than proposing it for merger, but I'm not him, obviously :-) Feliciacapulo responded there and in an edit to the article.
• On 9 July 2018, Dennis Bratland announced he was going to implement the merge, but for some reason it was instead done by Klbrain almost a year later, on 17 May 2019. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on page about me

Dear Yngvadottir, The Wikipedia article about me is constantly being vandalised, because of my advocacy for a retrial of Lucy Letby. I am unhappy about editing it myself: living persons mustn’t edit pages about themselves. I hope you know some ways to do something about this. Richard Gill (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Celtic reconstructionism

Please stop editing against consensus. There is agreement on the talk page that some of the sources you want to use are not WP:RS due to being WP:SELFPUB. There is no other editor who supports the inclusion, so the consensus is not to include. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, as I've said, though I disagree with the inclusion of a link to the CRFAQ, I won't remove it if it is in External links; Further reading is intended for high-quality sources that can be used as sources, not for links that cannot be used as sources. Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

And I've said that I see External links the opposite way. Anyway, I've had enough. Changed my !vote to Merge, do with it as you all will. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your conduct at User talk:Dandielayla, attempting to educate newbies with patience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It makes me very sad, but I don't see what can be done. I had a small hope someone else might be able to help them. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Stub vs start

It's a minor thing, but I classify all articles with less than 250 words of prose as still stubs. Per WP:STUB (granted, it's just one of the several rules of thumb mentioned there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't heard or had forgotten that criterion. I go more by whether it has sections and how complete it is (there isn't much to be said about that particular village; I searched in vain for a listing at the 1948 act changing names, for example). My "stub" is probably your "micro-stub", but ok. In any case I hope someone can add something other than boilerplate. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) And now I see you did! Yay, and many thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir Check the source I listed on wt:Poland. It has quite a lot of info, but sadly, I am not sure we can use it due to it being an (academically curated) wiki... maybe I should ask at RSN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I wondered about that and looked at the list, but note that I can't really read Polish ... Yngvadottir (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

...for cleaning up Rupperswil murder case. I was hemming and hawing about doing it myself b/c while it's a high-profile topic and the previous version just awful, it's also a distressing topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

pas de quoi. I have the languages, and luckily I found post-trial coverage to extend the vista. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a follow-up on its talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW

I have been pissed off about people doing this for a while, but it never occurred to me when making all those reverts that I could just put a big bold note that tells people not to do this in the first place... so for what it's worth I have added clarifying notes (summarizing and linking to WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK) at Category:Articles with dead external links and Wikipedia:WikiProject External links, which is probably where most people get to these maintenance categories. Can you think of anywhere else people might be getting to these lists from? jp×g🗯️ 06:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: Not really, no ... I don't think this is covered by any of the WMF's newbie suggestions or comes out of the Wikipedia Adventure, and the editor in question has now said twice at AN/I that she was coming from WikiProject External links. Thanks for your edits in those two places! I'm now going to stick my oar in again at AN/I. I'm still very concerned by what this editor is saying as well as what she's been doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Using_edit_summaries_for_a_campaign. Thank you. My Kingdom for a hearse (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So YVD, do you think if the IP shortened and softened their appendage, they should be unblocked? Regarding your own protest, are you sure the Foundation are even aware of your desire not to be included in their metrics? As it stands, each time you hit submit, you're reaffirming your consent to the Terms of Use, which explicitly allow the Foundation to take credit for your presence (but not the content you add). You obviously can't revoke that via your own appendage. Surely your conscience is aware of that? My Kingdom for a hearse (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Lucy Drexel Dahlgren House

Hi Yngvadottir, thanks for your work on the Lucy Drexel Dahlgren House article a few days ago. I've nominated this article for DYK and listed you as a co-nominator. Please let me know if there are any issues with that, or if you have any alternate hooks. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel a bit weird about getting a DYK credit since I stopped participating in that project after it was made to include GAs; and all the more so since you not only were able to track down both the city and the NRHP records that I couldn't find, but I see you've now massively expanded the article, so my contribution was tiny by comparison to yours, basically just getting there first after seeing the mention at the unnameable site and converting it from woeful to minimum. (Also I'd probably have used the auto turntable for another hook :-).) But I see it's now been accepted, and it was a generous gesture to include me. So thank you, and I won't pull my name. I have however rewritten the bit about the drawing room since the organ was removed after the cited description was written, presumably including the console (which was all that was in the drawing room). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why thank you! And a joyous Yule to you and yours :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

RE: Your sedulous efforts and contributions

@Yngvadottir I noticed your extreme improvement of this page.

Often times it seems a good numbers of Wikipedians (Many times for good reason) succumb to the practices of deletionists. I truly applaud you, for taking time out of your day to critically, analyze the article, and greatly improve it by means of research and extensive contributions to the content of the article.

I don't know you, but whoever you are in the real world, I imagine you are the type of human who approaches things with true intellectual curiosity, and nuance.

Again, thank you for improving Wikipedia, and being someone who demonstrates the characteristics of (in my little opinion) a truly valuable Wikipedian is. Such activities (in my experience) seem rare.

Beyond commendation, the last token I offer you, is my apology, for creating a page that lacked the depth and level of encyclopedic substance, which you subsequently provided in a way worthy of a masterclass.

Very much respect,

Cray04 (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Awarding this Barnstar based on your history of prolific edits, and recent edits to my article that demonstrate the high standards of your editing

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		message Cray04 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! (Blushing horribly). Yngvadottir (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

LOL cat! Thank you! And a joyous Yule to you and yours :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

December greetings

December: story · music · places

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, and a good Yule to you and yours! Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rupperswil murder case § Parole or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've found some additional sources. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw, thanks. Just grabbed Pascale Zehntner's master's thesis while it's still possible, but aren't we supposed to be leery of doctoral dissertations and turn our noses up completely at master's theses? I'd hate to try to wrestle legal prose to the ground only to be taken to the woodshed for citing it. Your references to what appears to be a walking back of the 2004 legal change are intriguing, and I hope you update the article on the law! I'll make my suggested changes at the end of the Rupperswil case article and possibly add a ref to Zehntner if no objections are raised and no one else does so. Got a lot on my plate on- and especially off-wiki, so I'm still standing back there. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. We don't have much explanation about how to use legal sources, an issue BD2412 is trying to resolve here. The only other user I know with familiarity with legal matters is Newyorkbrad. WP:SCHOLARSHIP does discourage the use of masters but that's more about science than law. Thierry Urwyler has written some publications, here and in the citations, but I can't tell how to find them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And likewise to you and yours, Ealdgyth, happiness and prosperity in 2024! Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

NoEndingFilms

I'm not sure if it's outing or not, but a quick google search of NoEndingFilms came up with hits to YouTube that show there is a clear COI with Sir Michael Rocks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Sigh. Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Héðinsfjörður crash

The 1947 Héðinsfjörður air crash article you created a while back just got moved to 1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash. While the mover makes good points in that air crash is probably not the correct term (plane crash is probably more correct), I'm not sure the new title is descriptive of that crash as it is so commonly linked to the site of the crash but not the airline or the plane type. Your thoughts? Alvaldi (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Monumento Nacional

@Yngvadottir Inoticed you deleted Portal Fernandez Concha from the list of National Monuments.

Here is a link confirming its status in the Chilean Congress official publication https://www.camara.cl/cms/noticias/2023/05/04/exponen-la-necesidad-de-recuperar-el-edificio-patrimonial-portal-fernandez-concha/

I feel if a building were discussed in the US congress it would be notable. I appreciate that chile isa small country that cant be compared to the USA but it would appear notable.

Its challenging to motivate yourself toengage and try create useful content on wikipedia when things are deleted without what would appear to be a second thought. TraceySear840 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir

additionally here [5]https://www.camara.cl/verDoc.aspx?prmId=5103&prmDestinoId=3&prmTipo=RESOLUCIONENVIO

it says "Lamentablemente, durante los últimos años se ha evidenciado una grave crisis de seguridad e integridad en los sectores aledaños a la Plaza de Armas de Santiago, y el Portal Fernández Concha es uno de los edificios más afectados, pese a ser monumento nacional. Así, recientemente, el portal periodístico CIPER publicó un reportaje que revela" TraceySear840 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi TraceySear840. Let me say first, I am glad you returned to editing. Secondly, I don't doubt the building is notable. That's why I rewrote your draft and moved it to mainspace. (And nobody has nominated the article for deletion, so the community appears to agree!) Unfortunately, it's quite common for a new editor to have an article on a notable topic rejected at Articles for Creation; the reviewers are looking at the draft, not researching the topic themselves, and as you have discovered, there's a steep learning curve for writers who want to create new articles.

I looked at the first link you added here (note that the Congress discussing the building and passing a resolution that it should be taken away from its owners is already in the article). However, that reference doesn't support listing it as a historic monument; it's not precisely expressed, but El inmueble se protege como monumento nacional en categoría de zona típica indicates what the other sources state: it's included in the zona típica of the Plaza de Armas and associated buildings, but not listed independently. Both quotations appear to be using the term loosely. If that has changed and the building is now listed independently as a historic monument, please find a citation where the Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales states that. I looked but found only the page we are citing, [6].

I realise it can be very discouraging to have your work reverted. And I do appreciate how hard it is to write for publication in a language that (I assume) is not your native language. I do not agree in the least with assuming that an editor's motivations are bad, and I hope you have now responded to the questions about conflict of interest and artificial intelligence so that those can be put to rest. I'm now going to go and check the article talk page and your talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir Thank you for the detailled feedback, advice and useful ideas. TraceySear840 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shimla Summer Festival has been accepted

Thanks very much, ToadetteEdit! I'm glad I managed to demonstrate notability. Since I didn't originally create the article, I'm going to move this template, with a note, to the talk page of the editor who did, Itsrahulkashyap. They're indefinitely blocked, but they deserve the credit for identifying the topic and trying to write it up. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

An offer

Good to see you're still around. I suspect someone is going to start an ARC sooner or later and I'm sure private deliberations are already occurring, but if you want I can help you draft a request, just let me know. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer (I'm sorry, I don't know which IP editor you are so I don't know how we've previously interacted). I would be bound to muck it up even with help, though. And while yes, I'm still kind of sort of here, I have to limit my editing these days. If nobody else does it, I will revisit it, but I think only the popcorn merchants would appreciate it's being me to file. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

We have crossed paths but that's unimportant, not who I am but what I do and all that, you know the mantra of all the forever unregistered. But I understand fully, frankly I was kind of kicking myself for offering since I just don't have the time for an extended proceeding right now, and the last thing I need is to be a named party to a case and even with the reforms this is enough of a mess I might be added just for helping. And you're right unfortunately the peanut gallery would have a field day and there's far to many old grudges. For that matter my style is rather distinct, not too many of us that can still talk about ancient lore, and while I mostly manage to get along with everyone, there's definitely a few people who wouldn't exactly be keen on sending me any Christmas cards.

Anyway, if the Arbitration Committee is going to live up to its mandate and the members to their election statements, the case should be accepted. A fairly low bar for review of sysop conduct has been set in recent years, for that matter even without the sysop component, an ARC is the only way to review cases based primarily off private evidence, and in the Tropical Cyclones case that alone was enough for an accept. Since this involves both, any case request that brings up the intersection of the two should be an easy accept. Figuring out the parties and scope is more difficult, but honestly the arbs are going to tweak that anyway, for better and for worse.

I'm fairly confident the arbs are discussing things privately already, but at this point I think it's important the community see they are addressing the issue and someone had to put this on the table, regardless of what happens I think it's good you put this on the table. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Yngvadottir,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom NihonJoe

Hi! Just noting that while I think your comment misinterpreted my meaning (or mine wasn't clear), I have no objection to it remaining there. ArbComm confuses me, so don't want to muddy it. Basically my meaning was any close was going to be reverted, not necessarily by anyone in support of or against the COI report but both "sides". It had been re-closed I believe x3 at this point and ArbComm was the only viable route to end the AN report which was otherwise going to continue because it could not be archived, and someone was wrong on the internet. I have no prior substantive interaction with NihonJoe nor the reporters other than being active editors, so I don't think I'm involved in either direction. Star Mississippi 02:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure you aren't. I feel bad about noting your wording and also about noting Dennis Brown's, and frankly I hate the whole thing ... but it's important that people be able to report what they consider malfeasance, or we wind up with worse things, one of which is overreliance on ArbCom. I've been considering posting my overarching thoughts somewhere on-wiki but sitting on my hands, partly because it's now at ArbCom. I wish it didn't have to be, and ArbCom confuses me too; I'm pretty sure this is my first time giving evidence except when I was a named party. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with you noting it at all, I just wanted to clarify my POV.

I'm not sure what the answer is (in general, I've not waded into the details of this specific case), but I'm pretty sure it's not ArbComm. Best of luck and have a good day Star Mississippi 12:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ron Baynham

On 26 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ron Baynham, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello Yngvadottir. How goes it? I don't know you and have never spoken to you. Do you think it would possible to give you a barnstar? scope_creep^Talk 19:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to, although I don't display them in a gallery or anything. (And we may well have been in the same discussions a few times; I stick my nose in.) Thanks for considering it, whether you do or not :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. Just so you know there is folk who appreciate your work. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your crystal clear analysis of events at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. It is well deserved. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I didn't think I did very well. Wow. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say a thank you for editing the Navel fetishism article, as well as your diligent efforts to improve Wikipedia articles, much appreciated! I notice that there are a number of articles in a similar sorry state - Midriff / Cultural views on the midriff and navel seems to have a similar issue of original research / celebrity fancruft that probably ought to be deleted. Just pointing out if you ever wanted to have a look at it. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Untergang meme" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Untergang meme has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § Untergang meme until a consensus is reached. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the additions to SPI. And for kind words. I look forward to our joint-nom at FAC  :) Yes, it was quite an interesting thing to write. Took me way out of my comfort zone! ——Serial Number 54129 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL thanks, but I don't do FA and just hope I don't muck up your work. Already well out of my comfort zone. But Joel Engel's Scorched Worth is making its way to me, and I have hopes for Carrite and the librarians at Oregon State if he makes that research trip. (I've also received another message from the mysterious messager at the unnameable site, whose privacy I shall continue to guard.) In the meantime, the DYK deadline is probably coming up ... Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

May music

story · music · places

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). - Thank you for digging up sources for the baritone's colleague, - they were the couple Hans & Grete in the opera the Nazis also banned. Her recital will be next Tuesday but less thought-provoking ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to Samuel Kummer, including more detail from sources. I accepted most, but changed a few things, with edit summaries, - please check. For example: "Evangelisch" is not "evangelical", but Protestant (see: Name), and that is not Lutheran (alone) but a united church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Digging further, this particular member church is Lutheran, - always learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!

Thanks so much for updating Jeffrey Veregge's article to restore his S'Klallam membership to the need - I would have done that myself had I checked my watchlist earlier. MOS:ETHNICITY even has a note saying that if a person has tribal citizenship it should be mentioned in the lead.

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I hadn't seen that note, actually, just a point about Spanish regions. In the meantime I've started a section on talk with a fuller explanation of my actions (partly because I'm worried the internationalization part of my edit may have been unintentionally disrespectful), and pinged the editor who made the change. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Star of the Sea School and *another* question on English variants

Following our chat, I've made the Star of the Sea School disambig. Can you red pen it? My computer and spell-checker were at war with putting a period at the end of the points. I was going to format it to align with Woodrow Wilson High School, but since the listed schools had disambigs in their titles, I expanded it.

I have another language-related question. I understand the importance of using the English variant that is closely connected to the subject. How do disambig pages work? If there are two planes both named "TheSpaceplane," one British and one American, would the disambiguation be as follows?

• TheSpaceplane (Yngva Airlines), British aeroplane
• TheSpaceplane (Dottir Airlines), American airplane

If there are two wide-waterfall 'valves that release water' both named "TheSpacebar," one British and one American, would the disambiguation be as follows?

• TheSpacebar (Yngva Plumbing), British tap
• TheSpacebar (Dottir Plumbing), American faucet

TheSpacebook (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheSpacebook: Internationaliz/se :-) ... "aircraft", "plumbing fixture".

I'll check the page after getting some coffee into me. (Someone else may have already done so, since it will come up on the NPP list.) But turn off autocorrect. Seriously. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ms. Fifty Thousand

I MADE FIFTY THOUSAND EDITS (AND ZERO ENDORSEMENTS OF THE WMF) AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS STUPID T-SHIRT

jp×g🗯️ 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Less almost $1,000 deleted. Thank you for noticing :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nervously anticipating your red pen

Per your request, I created the article on Charley Hill (detective). I was surprised that it hadn't been created previously. I would like to mention that this article was probably the worst one to be assigned to me because of which English variant to use. I went with British English, but I have a draft in American English ready if you think it needs changing. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah, there's a stronger case for British, I think :-) Congratulations on writing one of the many articles that Wikipedia should indeed already have had! Yngvadottir (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A BLP question whilst we're here

It is of public record that we have had disagreements when interpreting BLP policy when it comes to the presuming in the favor of privacy (of things such as addresses... 🤣). If someone doesn't have an article, do they get named or not? In the article I didn't name the prisoner that helped with finding the painting, nor did I name any of Hill's living family members, such as his widow. Often I see infoboxes which list spouses, so I erred with caution and didn't name anyone. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A fast answer ... I err on the side of privacy (for example I would also probably not have named informants, or former co-workers/bosses; and I don't name people's minor children). But the decisive factor is not whether they already have a Wikipedia article (this is a good example of why that's not a good guide on notability) or even whether they merit a red link in my judgement. As the big example, I do usually name people's life partners, and while carrying over the number of survivors from an obituary to the Personal life section is not encyclopedic writing, I do say how many children the person had. These are important biographical details, in my judgement (and including them for men works to offset the tendency to make a big deal about romantic history in biographies of women). Others undoubtedly differ in detail. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up question. Why are red links merited? Is there a policy (to encourage article creation)? They always look out of place to me. Hypocrite --> TheSpacebook (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:Red link says it emphatically and repeatedly at the start; they're a suggestion to fellow Wikipedians (who may not know an article is needed without one). They also assist with article creation; it's a lot easier to start a new article by clicking on a red link than by starting it in user space and then moving it, or by getting to the blank page at the right title by some other method. As you probably saw, I like to note in my edit summary when I've added a red link, to draw attention to it and to provide another place to click '-) When I was new, I thought they indicated a deleted page and removed a few for that reason, but admins are expected to remove them when they delete an article. And sometimes an article was deleted after a long-ago AfD and the topic has since become notable, or more clearly so; or it was an expired PROD and nobody noticed at the time to contest it. If someone later red links the same title or one of its redirects, clicking on the red link brings up the deletion edit summary and a link to the discussion, so the situation can be assessed (and for the PROD, it may be worth going to deletion review). On the other hand, there are some ridiculous red links out there, including trivial brand names and instances where a newbie used [[ where they should have used ''. So I do zap them sometimes. (And it's not a good idea to have them in places like the Notable people sections of settlement articles, and they're verboten in See also sections.)

The one big downside to red links is that they are disturbing and frustrating for readers. Often this can be offset a bit by using an interlanguage link. (There's even a parameter for piped links.) This gives the reader a red link followed by one or more little official language abbrevs. leading to foreign-language Wikipedia coverage of the topic; some will be able to take advantage of those. On the other hand, Easter egg links directly to a foreign-language article are rude (as well as concealing from fellow editors here that the topic doesn't actually have an article here). I'm not about to edit the Red link page, but it shouldn't advise that as a valid alternative. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand why logged-in users see them, but I don't see the purpose of displaying red links to logged-out readers if they cannot create pages. That said, I have completed the Hill article and removed it from my watchlist, per me exhausting the sources I found. Additionally, I do not wish to continue excessively correcting my typos or rephrasing parts that don't need to be changed.

Does "Easter egg links directly to a foreign-language article are rude" refer to number five of H:FOREIGNLINK? It does seem slightly deceptive, but the web browsers with the biggest market share have auto-translate built in. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't think I'd ever looked at that help page. I hadn't thought about in-browser translation; I always get asked whether I want to see a web page in translation, I suppose others have it set to automatic. I'd still call it an Easter egg. (I guess we show red links to logged-out readers out of openness, and to suggest they come aboard to help remedy such deficiencies; in the early years there will have been a higher number of red links in the average page, and they may have been one impetus to becoming an editor.) The article looks good, and I see it's been marked reviewed by the NPP people. Congrats again! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hector Guimard has been nominated for deletion

Category:Hector Guimard has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baptiste Masotti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sud Ouest.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Per etc

You may find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/Humour relevant. jp×g🗯️ 20:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Cute, except for the last paragraph of the gentleman's statement. I forget whether I'd seen that; if you aren't in the habit of piping to Exploding whale, then I had :-)

I'd like to see you commenting over there. But then I'm known for my naivete. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fleas flee

Very dry! I an honoured to have my schoolboy errors highlighted 😀 well spotted 👍 ——Serial Number 54129 20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Heh, wondered if you'd notice :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sent home with a flea in my ear!  :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Rígsþula, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! But I'd better decline; I've never been much involved with WikiProjects, and tehse days I limit my editing. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Better late than never

Re your request at [7], here's that title page:

WALTER BAETKE

KLEINE SCHRIFTEN

Geschichte, Recht und Religion

in germanischem Schrifttum

Hearausgegeben von

Kurt Rudolf und Ernst Walter

HERMANN BÖHLAUS NACHFOLGER

---

WEIMAR 1973

So that's one thing off my todo list. Now I can move on to December 2020. EEng 03:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! So Hollis has the subtitle almost entire. I think that's been fixed since I looked it up and it was too abbreviated to figure out whether it was in or im :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support

It comes at a great time. I felt attacked with very little recourse. Never having been blocked (or even chastised) I was in distress. WP is an important part of my day. I usually give out an EDDY award on Saturday. Today I felt seasick...like I was thrown overboard from the Good Ship Wikipedia. But...I know how to swim and I survived and have been unblocked. Thanks again! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 01:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't help at the time, just express relief after you'd extricated yourself. Yes, you are very much valued. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"This edit intended to improve the encyclopedia is not an endorsement of the WMF."

Hello again! Looks like this is the second time in five years that I've had to give one of your edits more scrutiny than necessary after it stood out on my watchlist for suggesting that somebody had made a possibly controversial edit - where "the WMF" was some aspect of the article's subject who the writer was not wishing to endorse but may have inadvertently done so. The kind of edit that another user should check for neutrality, if so.

I do think this falls under the "misleading" concern of WP:SUMMARYNO, to editors who (like me) do not instantly think of the Wikimedia Foundation when someone uses the acronym when writing a few sentences about, say, the history of a high school.

Please do consider consider setting up a user page and linking to that in your edit summaries, perhaps with a hashtag (eg. School opened in 2023 as scheduled, campus opened August 13. #NOTWMF). This would also mean that a curious editor could actually see what your view of the WMF was, without having to ask you. Belbury (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I think the edit summary as-is is less confusing than #NOTWMF would be. If there's any vagueness about what the "WMF" is (the acronym is used in the article for something else), it could always be expanded to "the Wikimedia Foundation". Regardless, I see this edit summary as a sort of protest and I'd rather see it than lose good contributions to the encyclopedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Clovermoss, that means a lot. Belbury, here's what I'd typed when I got a double edit conflict.

Interesting idea; I assume you've seen my user page and mean a subpage? But I think that would be a violation of WP:POLEMIC, which is the policy that others have raised. It's really quite simple; I love contributing to Wikipedia, but since WP:FRAM I can only square it with my conscience if I add a disclaimer (and also limit my edits to under their threshold for "very active", which at least means colleagues don't have to see the disclaimer very often!). I'm afraid not violating POLEMIC is more important to me than being clear; I believe most editors who read that far will figure out that I mean the Wikimedia Foundation, and I deliberately keep the disclaimer short and unemotional except when editing in my user space. I am sorry for the added length, but more sorry that my edit summaries have always tended to be long, because I often make a lot of changes in one edit. (One of the few helpful things the WMF has done in the past decade is increase the maximum edit summary length.) ... And I think people who clicked on a link to something in my user space, as opposed to seeing a formulaic extra sentence, would have real reason to be annoyed. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've always enjoyed your edit summary, and believe that the WMF needs to greatly enhance its funding to Wikipedia projects and conferences (per its donation request implications and promises). And yes, I liked your well-written comment at Clovermoss's survey. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that she has different priorities for funding than you do, Randy. I get the impression she is way more concerned about technical debt than showy conferences and I'd tend to agree, even if Wikimania and WCNA are fun events to attend. I would imagine the average person donating thinks that it "helps keep the servers running" or whatever. Some organizations offer a drop-down menu when you donate of where you'd wish for it to be allocated. We don't but I think that we probably should. Let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth, Yngvadottir, I'd never want to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both! A drop-down menu of options for directing donations is an interesting idea, but the WMF might feel it revealed too much of a disconnect between the kinds of things they spend money on and the needs implied in their advertising. I would prefer them to downsize radically and to pause fundraising semi-permanently (they have a sizeable endowment, and a significant part of their workforce is fundraisers). But my disclaimers arise from quite basic disgust at the organization, which came to a head with Framgate and its aftermath. Others left the project. It's not about wanting more resources from the WMF, it's about their responding to the needs and wishes of the community (technical included—the largely ignored wishlist), which should be what they do. (By the way, Randy Kryn, I think you're responding to something I said on that unnameable forum, so I should make clear that it wasn't the thought of your having read my bloviations that gave me an ick feeling, but rather the thought of Jimbo having read them.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

significant part of their workforce is fundraisers may I ask why you think that? I got the impression that most foundation staff have some sort of tech or communication based role. I could be wrong and I tend to find it valuable to understand why people think the way they do. It's entirely possible my preconceived notions are wrong here.

As for Jimmy Wales, may I ask why having him read your comments would make you uneasy? Is there something specifically you don't like about him as a person or is it more about your unfavourable attitude towards the WMF generally? I think that there needs to be less of a disconnect between the community and the foundation and listening to dissenting voices is important. It gives you a better grasp of a situation compared to people only telling you good things because of who you are (his talk page says he's still on the board unless that's outdated). I didn't start editor reflections thinking that the foundation would care about it but I do think having a variety of perspectives is important. If they're willing to start listening to community voices more, isn't that a good thing?Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The financial statements tell the tale, but some of what you're thinking of as "communications" may be fundraising in my mind. (And there are also a lot of people involved in planning and strategizing that from my perspective is a lot more harmful than useful.) I'll hunt for a link to check out whether I'm wrong; as I recall they reduced their fundraising staff last year. Yes, it's good for WMF employees to listen to us more, and not just as representatives of the WMF but as individuals; the fact there is a disconnect is fundamentally wrong, and I hope that page of questionnaire responses has been widely read. Jimbo is a special case; he was involved in the establishment of the project but I think he was quite surprised how it turned out, he set up the WMF, and he's wisely stepped aside as an admin. It was Jimbo I was being sassy about off-wiki. Messy response, I know, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind messy responses. When I think of communications roles, I mostly think of the few editors I know who also work for the foundation. I don't really know of anyone who does fundraising-specific stuff so if you can find the links for that, I'd be incredibly curious. I liked Jimmy well enough when I met him but I can understand why not everyone would feel the same way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The love of money is the root of The Beatles, or something. My attitude about WMF funding raised and WMF funding spent comes down to sharing the wealth a bit more. I've never read the wish list page, does it have a rundown of top items wished for, the funding needed to achieve the major long-term and agreed-upon goal, and how much of that funding has already been given? From outside thinking about looking in, but not doing so, it seems obvious to me that WMF should be funding Wikipedian initiated and Wikipedian produced projects at the rate of, picking a billfold out of a hat, 20 million dollars American first-time lump sum and then see where that takes it. Probably many donators believe they are funding all of good things aobut the projects, that's how they are presented and believed.

Yes, the technical side is ultra-important, although I can't imagine how they do the things they do. I read a tech discussion and understand what the term "it's all Greek to me" means. Not to fully wall-of-text this, Clovermoss, your idea of a pull-down funding bequest has merit, a nice thought. As for conferences, WMF giving many more full scholarships to regional and worldwide conventions would give both long-time and newly minted Wikimedians the experience of being in those conference rooms, lobbies, bars, Indian restaurants, and conversational spaces with fellow volunteers. An invaluable individual experience and a culminative plus for all the projects. The North American conference could also use an evening banquet or two. As for fundraising, the more the merrier, and I've advocated for obtaining massive donations from the world's billionaires, many of whom "know" the importance of Wikipedia and the other projects (another avenue where specificities concerning a list of things to be funded would apply). I have more, but my computer screen is running out of ink. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think many people would be rightfully concerned about more funding from large companies and billionaires. At its heart, Wikipedia isn't a for-profit so anything that might interfere with that should get side-eyed at the very least. I do find value in the conversation-sharing aspects of conferences but I don't think they should be the highest on the list of priorities when there's so many other things to worry about. I doubt the average person hearing that Wikipedia needs their money would be that happy finding out that it's going towards a fancy banquet but there's a decent chance they'd be alright with the general concept of allowing editors to connect with each other in person (which is why they should be given the choice in how they want to allocate their funds). Does that make sense? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, all ideas and points of view along these lines make sense. There shouldn't be any problems with funding both WMF and Wikipedian/Wikimedian generated ideas, just more of them and a few billionaires willing to be asked to pet-project WMF programs. Those billionaires would have to understand that their personal Wikipedia biographies would be scrutinized for any favoritism and would almost-necessarily gain negative facts and language as a logical countermeasure to the impression of selling Wikipedia's words. That said, I bet lots of the deep-pocket fans of Wikipedia would love to give the volunteers a banquet, complete with speeches, special appearances, and a show (if VivaWikiVegas26 occurs who knows, we might, unlike the Democratic Convention before us, be voluntarily entertained by Beyonce. Or at least one or two long-time Vegas performers who would love to "give back" to some of the volunteer editors who created this cultural phenomena). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to disagree on what is possible. 😅 Fun fact about me: the other top two contenders for my name were Courtney and Beyoncé. I am infinitely grateful that my parents went with Hannah, I could not imagine any of those other names suiting me. I also wonder why my Dad wanted me to have the name of a "worldly" singer given the whole religious upbringing thing. I'm officially named after this Hannah. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously this throwaway line from my childhood is making me question how that's even possible. What was my Dad thinking? Were my parents just joking when they said this? I was looking at the article for Beyonce to see if maybe her music at the time would be something my parents would have been alright with me listening to and that's an easy no. If my Dad wanted to name me after a famous person, he could've suggested Serena given that she was actually raised as a JW (even if she didn't get baptized until recently). Did he just think that the name sounded nice? This is starting to drive me a bit crazy. I almost wish I could ask him why.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To get a bit more on track though, why do you think something of that scale would be necessary, Randy? It seems like it wouldn't be the most effective use of financial resources. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Randy, you obviously trust the WMF to have the best interests of the projects at heart; from my perspective, they may mean well, but helping the volunteers is not their main focus, and the objectives they do have tend to be damaging. The conventions are an example: not everyone can go (in addition to financial constraints many people have work or other commitments, or can't travel for various reasons, and with the best will in the world there are accessibility issues at a convention), or indeed wants to, and they contribute along with the structure of local chapters and affiliates to a sidelining of the actual volunteer effort on the projects, which is online, and the development of two tiers of editors: the Wikimedians and the rest. On the software, I'm referring to meta:Community Wishlist (which they largely ignore to instead foist on us excrescences like WP:FLOW and bad redesigns of the default skin), and I am unimpressed with the quality of WMF software work, such as the many years required to make VizEd even halfway fit for purpose, and what I am told is an extremely bad mobile editor. There are things I would like the WMF to do, but most of them I don't trust it not to muck up either deliberately or accidentally.

On money, I agree with Clovermoss but I'd go further: donors should be appalled at the amount of their money that is already spent on the social side of the projects, and it would be shocking to ratchet that up any further. There's an important difference between using donor money for on the one hand, donating laptops and wifi hubs to widen access to the projects and providing scholarships to enable non-wealthy people to present at conferences/conventions, and on the other, laying on banquets or just increasing attendance at the conferences/conventions. The WMF has an awful lot of money for a non-profit, especially considering it uses ads insinuating the servers may need to be shut down, and especially considering it also gets grants from Google and others. We've had donors posting at noticeboards about how they gave money they really needed for rent and food. That makes me feel ashamed; those appeals were nominally made on my behalf. It also makes me ashamed to think what worthier causes some of those donations might have otherwise gone to. If the WMF wants to spend down its stash a bit, it would do more good supporting the Internet Archive than almost anything it spends money on. So I'm afraid I disagree with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Not being conference-centric, just one of many ideas. By "banquet" I mean a Saturday or Sunday evening buffet or catered box dinner with pre-packaged good but not overly expensive food, not a seven-course meal served by Britannica workers. And no, not every Wikipedian can attend or even has an interest in a conference, but a couple of hundred more scholarships for each conference seems feasible, especially when major donors are given that funding option (and especially for the 2026 25th anniversary conference in Paris). More importantly, as long as there is a well-developed wish list of feasible projects awaiting funding, the WMF should be allocating yearly funds toward those goals (i.e. some of the initial 20 million mentioned above).

As long as this discussion has veered into in-depth analysis, what about the so-called Wikimedia Movement and its goals. Why not add, if it isn't being done already, a major emphasis on funding programs to promote and enhance early childhood reading? The earlier a child can read the earlier the brain's pathways develop specific cognitive abilities, and early childhood reading seems to directly coincide with the structure of WMF's hopes and dreams. Things like that, summarized and presented as funding options (such as your mention of donating new computers to long-time users), would give non-donating billionaires more tangible ways to focus their money (a deep dive into Elon Musk's mind: "I certainly don't want to fund Wikipedia, where the wild things roam, but since the WMF is coming to me with several funding options, their early childhood reading project has success written all over it.") In other words, tech upkeep first, the sky is the limit second. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that seems a bit more reasonable to me although I can't speak for Yngvadottir. I'm uncertain about the WMF funding other things that aren't directly project based given how much is already spent. Something that was interesting about Wikimania was getting the chance to interact with affiliates and other partners like the Internet Archive because those sorts of inner workings are somewhat of a mystery even to someone like me whose become incredibly involved on the community aspect of the movement. I felt a bit out of place at times because it sometimes felt like everyone I was meeting was involved in an affiliate or a grant funded project. I'm in the middle of writing an interesting essay about those sorts of things. That said, you might want a better example than Elon Musk. I can't see him being supportive of anything involving "wokepedia". He's kind of the poster child for why people might be wary of anyone with a bunch of money throwing it at the foundation, even if that might also come with access to resources we wouldn't otherwise have. I do think Yngvadottir makes a good point that the foundation isn't broke either and there's good reason to be concerned when the fundraising campaigns imply otherwise or employ manipulative tactics. Tech upkeep should definitely come first because I'm under the impression we're years behind on that and that's not a good state of things for a tech-based nonprofit. Even newbie me had some thoughts on that even if she was a bit more naive on how all this works [8]. As for mobile editing, oh wow do I have thoughts. I'd encourage people to take a look at CENT and read my essay on that. Anyways, I'm off to go take a long walk off to a library I wrote an article about recently (no freely licensed photographs exist yet). I also have high hopes for learning about how Norway funds religious communities and maybe expanding Jehovah's Witnesses. That situation seems complicated, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well what I thought was on CENT. Apparently someone removed it for "inactivity" even though plenty of people have commented there. [9] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like you rode a great learning curve at that conference. What jumps out for me is that the foundation is years behind with some tech? I'm not functional in techspeak, and even the CENT page and topic is new to me. Yet I'm surprised there may be problems in the tech area of WMF, they should get the best people in the world working on the things, even if they can only be hired for a week or two. Not my area of knowledge in any way. Elon Musk, I've got more hopes for him and WMF getting together on something than most. With his smarts and perception of the world he likely has a well-developed sense of the importance of Wikipedia, historically and culturally, and part of him loves it. He seems angry enough at it to offer that billion-dollar challenge, and he wouldn't have done that if he was totally anti, just frustrated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we have very different ideas about Elon Musk. I'll leave it at that. As for tech issues, yes it's a very well known problem. It's not a failure to innovate, it's that a lot of stuff simply doesn't work the way it should. There are much better people than me to explain all the ways this sucks and how frustrated they are about it. CENT is a shortcut for Template:Centralized discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You're educating me on an area I know little about, and I didn't realize the extent that such tech problems existed. Hopefully there's a worldwide task force of the most capable minds on the planet working on it (whatever it is, and for someone on the outside looking in the technology of Wikipedia seems magical and works amazingly well, so whatever the problem is I hope it's not leading to potential breakdowns, harm, or lessening of Wikipedia's day-to-day operations). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Um, well, people have known that these issues for quite awhile. I imagine that's a big part of why relations with the foundation can be a bit messy, alongside those other factors. May I ask why you have so much faith in the foundation's abilities? I have more optimism than most but yours is like on an extra level. I wonder why that might be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the extent of the problems is news to me, and you've gotten my interest up about what they are (although, if mainly tech, I won't be able to understand them anyway). I don't have great faith in the foundation's present-time abilities and their oddly low communication level with the community. My comments on WMF focus on "best possible results" based upon Wikipedia's well-earned reputation, what I imagine donors may expect for their money, and the vast untapped potential for further funding of specific projects. Combined with a bit of faith that the foundation will evolve into funding much of the communities wish lists, adding things like an early childhood reading project into the mix seems reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Just realized, is the main tech problem that brouhaha over the default Vector skin? That was/is a grindy issue. I'm happily outside of its range as I use the Monobook skin. Took a quick look at wishlist but didn't study how it works. Are people happy with the results of the interaction between Wishlist and the Foundation? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, definitely not. It's way more complicated than that. As I said, there are way better people than me out there to explain all the bugs and technical debt that frustrates them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I once had an interesting conversation with SMcCandlish who could probably explain all that a bit better than I could. I will say that I have noticed a good trend in the foundation listening to community perspectives more, even if there's still a ways to go in addressing people's concerns. I just don't want to sound all doom and gloom when there are some good things that are happening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Randy Kryn, people are definitely not happy with the WMF's response to the Wishlist; they habitually ignore all or most of it, instead imposing changes that tend to get in the way of our work, and in the case of the Visual Editor, they added it after years of imploring and it was horrendously bad and I think they still have aspects of it (like talk-page editing) that aren't fixed. Their testing is not only inadequate, they ignore feedback, and there are urgent bug reports from years ago that still aren't fixed; it tends to take someone with inside contacts yanking their chain before the devs will fix something. There's been more than one occasion when community members have had to step in and code a fix or a bypass for something the WMF broke (off the top of my head, two examples: (a) when they removed the "orange bar of doom" and gave us the ping/notifications system, but forgot to give unregistered editors any notification of posts to their user talk pages, so that IP editors were about to be blocked after a series of warnings to their talk pages that they had no reason to realise existed, and we were unable to get anyone at the WMF to realise this needed fixing urgently—someone whipped up a notification for IP editors; (b) when they pulled the plug on the toolbar most of us were still using—someone, I think the same person, recreated it and told us what to add where to carry on editing with the shortcuts we all variously needed). The "technical debt" thing has to do with the underlying code, which needs updating, as well as with the need to adapt to new devices (cellphones and tablets), but the WMF fails chronically at providing for how people actually work on the projects, even at testing adequately for the fact this is not some social media thing where the sky will not fall in if there's downtime or if some function breaks temporarily, but live creation and maintenance of a Top 10 website and associated websites. Plus they may be headquartered in SF, near Silicon Valley, but they do not have a top-tier programming team by any measure, and the community includes some extremely good programmers. (Same embarrassing thing goes for editing and indeed for contributing to Commons; there are some frighteningly accomplished and distinguished people among the doofuses like me.)

From some of what you're saying, I wonder whether you think the WMF actually started and runs Wikipedia? It was actually instituted several years after the project began, so all its movement strategising is actually beyond its remit. The WMF has no right to claim credit for my work whatsoever, although I gritted my teeth and tacitly accepted its doing so until Framgate. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for the long and detailed response, I'll have to reread it a couple of times. One reason I may have missed the depth of this is that the only tool I use is Hotcat, and that's never had problems as far as I remember. What stands out quickly is that you think the wishlist isn't being regarded by the Foundation with the respect it should have, and is not being fully funded. That seems a problem. Does the Foundation assign a very large team of coders and tech people just to work on Wikipedia and the other projects' maintenance and improvements, and nothing else, along with interested tech savvy Wikipedians and Wikimedians? WMF came into existence fairy long after Wikipedia was up and running, and as I understand it, formed to maintain and fund Wikipedia and then the growing list of other projects. It does not have any say over content. Wikipedia content is off the table for the Foundation, I think they understand that. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I generally concur with Yngvadottir's summary of the issues, even if Clovermoss has detected some improvements. As I've been saying for over a decade now, WMF has an organizational lifecycle problem, in which it refuses to move on from the "visionary founding by myopic and control-freak nerds" phase into the "operated by experienced nonprofit/NGO people and leading intellectuals in the target issue area" phase. It is operating like a software company with product/service deliverables to the commercial market, instead of behaving as what it actually is, a not-for-profit charity with a public-interest mission. Its board and staff are chock full of software and ISP industry people, and its tech development is run on a basis of pushing features (dreamed up by marketing) to try to grow a customer base, instead of listening to an serving the actual needs of the active constituency using or trying to use the tools. I've (professionally) been through this sort of stalled-org-development problem twice before (at EFF, which fixed it and flourished; and at CRF, which did not and collapsed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Those they do hire from the non-profit world, particularly their recent CEOs, have clearly been chosen for their fundraising acumen. I'm not sure there's a good comparison for the WMF. Unlike other charities, they are not in control. We volunteers don't volunteer for the WMF (except for a tiny minority in the chapters, on the WMF strategy wikis, and at Wikidata who may see their volunteer work that way). The WMF's function is supposed to be ancillary, to support what the volunteers do. Drmies once called it a secretariat, which I think is a good word. Apart from their ineptitude, the basic problem is that, while demurring to avoid falling foul of Section 230 or whatever its number is, they keep trying to steer the projects. Pronouncements that indigenous knowledge must be given priority and that behaviour policies must not favour established users (in fact almost the entirety of the "universal code of conduct", as underlined by the fact they ignored the community's disinclination to ratify it) influence the writing of the encyclopaedia, and are intended to. Campaigns against "toxic users" at Wikimania do too. Projects such as WikiEdu (no longer officially a WMF programme), the now notorious experiment with targeted recruiting of editors in India, and the ongoing contests to add as many images as possible, etc., etc., are all well intentioned interference; they are bad not just because of their poor execution (the WMF consistently fails to emphasise the seriousness of copyvio or build in adequate mechanisms for finding and dealing with it when participants in these programmes commit copyvio) but because they jump over the project communities (and expect us to clean up the resulting messes, of course). The whole "movement" thing is in large part a fiction to justify the WMF's curated image as the owner-controller of the projects; the great majority of volunteers, including highly active volunteers, work almost entirely on one project, and the attempt to rebrand themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation" was revealing as to the extent they seek to claim the credit for what we do. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

the now notorious experiment with targeted recruiting of editors in India haven't heard of that one before. What exactly are you referring to? I'm aware that WikiEd has inadvertently caused huge cleanup messes but I'm not really aware of other things that directly involve the foundation. Just to be clear, you're mostly concerned about the implementation of these initiatives and not the ideas themselves, correct? Or am I not getting what your argument is? I think that knowledge (and in this case, institutional knowledge) is power because I think a lot of people genuinely don't understand the reasons behind why there's tension with the foundation and the community. One could probably write a whole book about it, honestly. So that's why I think it's important to have clear things to point to when people are confused about the why. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:, I've decided to go ahead and make a statement about the Wikimedia Foundation on my talk page after giving this some thought. After nearly 20 years of building articles on the site, I have to say that nothing good seems to happen around here under the Wikimedia Foundation's hold on the project's purse strings. I believe the Wikimedia Foundation should outright be dissolved at this point. Maybe then all that money collected under our names will have a chance at actually improving Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Bloodofox, hi again, and that's a good statement. (For others, it's on their user page.) If only we had a lean, mean secretariat supporting our work rather than this albatross flopping around our collective necks.

Clovermoss, I'm afraid it's both, but primarily their meddling by doing such things. They're trying to direct the projects, to determine their priorities and impose WMF decisions on them. I tracked down specifics about 2 things:

* The India thing was the India Education Program, in 2011, ended in January 2012. It may have predated WikiEdu. It was a bit of a disaster and has been cited ever since as Exhibit A for the WMF sticking the community with a big mess to clean up. Their own summary is pretty bad. So far as I can reconstruct, they decided that since India is a massive country with a large number of people literate in English, the WMF should get more editors from India by running a training program to teach them how to edit (from my perspective, paternalistic condescension towards Indians on top of the arrogant notion that the WMF should plan and steer how Wikipedia participation expands). So far as I can see, they only trialed this in Pune before they pulled the plug; there were massive, pervasive problems with copyvio. Searching the AN/I archives, I also find someone reporting in September 2012 that large numbers of articles from the program were being AfDed; that short discussion, and the red links in it (which of course I can't see even if I could understand the technical and scientific topics) suggest there were also problems with notability.

* User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer turned out when I looked at it again to be heavily focussed on the growth in WMF funds, both income and end-of-year surplus. Its table has been updated almost to the present (through June 2023, possibly the latest figures available) and links to pdf statements; there also should be a graph but the WMF still haven't fixed the graphs extension (it's been at least a year, that can be used as an example of poor responsiveness to Phabricator tickets.) Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding about the graphs extension is that they're planning to replace it with something else. Thank you for linking those other pages, I'll take a look at them. Something written in the cancer essay caught my eye: We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. Do they not do that? Like I know I suggested that donors get a dropdown menu of where they want to allocate their funds (technical support, community support, etc) but do they really not keep track of these things internally? That would be shocking. In regards to political advocacy, I don't know about the past, but I asked a question about this at Wikimania and was told that they only get involved in things that directly involve the projects. I've seen at least one person get upset that they "weren't doing enough" when it stopped affecting the projects and they stopped caring. I'd have to go digging but I'm fairly certain it had something to do with some government regulation somewhere.

It probably sounds a bit stupid that this conversation got me thinking of "what if they spent money doing something?" It might be a better prioritization of funds spent elsewhere. Imagine if the foundation provided some sort of stipend for experienced editors to improve a certain amount of articles. Maybe it'd be a specific topic area (like women or developing countries) that are considered underrepresented or maybe it'd even just be more generalized. A lot of donors already think they're supporting volunteers directly with their donations. But you'd be less likely to run into massive cleanup problems involving copyright or notability if you're directly supporting people who already know what they're doing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That would almost certainly fall afoul of Section 230 though. (I looked it up, and had remembered the number correctly.) As it is they push up to the line with GLAM fellowships (and other programmes involving grants from 3rd parties), and I believe there are sponsorships at one remove through the chapters. And they do what they can to support Women in Red. (Also the laptops are given to people after applications that highlight their contributions record.) In addition to the legal issue, the community as a whole is vigorously opposed to paid editing—for many, the GLAM positions don't pass the smell test for that reason, and when Dr. Blofeld organised content improvement contests with prizes (I think the prizes were subscriptions to journals or credit to buy books), there was disapproval. If the WMF were to pay editors, there'd be an outcry. I'd be strenuously opposed too because it would be another instance of them deciding what content we need or whose work should be promoted. That's not the wiki way, it's astroturfing. They do not have a mandate to oversee our work. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The way I was thinking of it was more focused on content improvement (give experienced editor x for their rent and they improve 30 articles of their choice). I thought it might be a useful idea because experienced editors are less likely to run into issues like copyright infringement or lack understanding about notability. It'd also be a way to support editors without the foundation directly interfering and a common misconception donors have is that they are supporting content (so why not actually do that?) But I understand if actually implementing something like this would bring more disadvantages than benefits (did not even think of the possible legal implications there). I was under the impression that the community was generally more favourable to responsible GLAM and Wikimedian in Residence programs (my definition of responsible is basically being a decent editor that's following all the rules but also compensated for their work). So I didn't think my random idea would necessarily lead to a massive community outcry but it's possible I'm a bit out of touch on that. After all, I did just recently spend a bunch of time interacting with a bunch of people involved in affiliate work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Dr. Blofeld. I'd be interested to hear about your experiences trying to organize content improvement challenges. Also I apologize for taking over your talk page, Yngvadottir, let me know if you prefer I move this discussion elsewhere. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yngie and Clover! I think contests and challenges are the best thing we could do for Wikipedia, but they are very time consuming to run, particularly if you have bills to pay like most of us. Unfortunately the WMF were not willing to fund multiple contests, in fact I found the head of the grants team Marti Johnson to be quite rude and difficult. Private funding for contests from weslthy people like Elon Musk with big prizes offered would be ideal, but would probably cause contention with those against "paid editing". The Africa contest was amazing in paricular I thought, over 2000 improvements to articles that nobody ever edits. I wish there was a way to scale that globally long term, and could be done with decent funding and competent people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to see you, Dr.! (I must admit, it would be fun to read an announcement that Elon Musk was underwriting an effort by Dr. Blofeld to improve Wikipedia '-) I might even dust off my YouTube channel to vlog about that one. Ahem.) Clovermoss, no trouble at all. Now that it's a new month, I can respond :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"27712 Pacific Coast Highway" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 27712 Pacific Coast Highway has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § 27712 Pacific Coast Highway until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Friendly notice

This isn't a "formal" notice and you're accused no wrongdoing, but since your name was mentioned, I feel it's appropriate that you're aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors unable to participate collaboratively regarding the recent dispute at EEng's talk page, assuming you haven't yet seen the notice there. Here's hoping that this can finally be addressed before more harm is caused in mainspace or a good faith contributor gets run off the project. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Mollenkopf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mollenkopf, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mollenkopf until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: AI-generated content

Re your message at User talk:TechScribeNY about AI content ... I didn't think of dead-on-arrival references in that way, but it makes sense! There was also at least one in this similar edit by Robbandstra,, also mentioned at the SPI. I'd never encountered anything like that before. Responding here rather than where you put the message on the very much outside chance that these users are here in good faith ... though honestly I think they're deliberately wasting our time. Graham87 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

... Which makes me wonder whether the user pages are written with AI too. Gptzero said there's a 70% chance that the TechScribeNY user page is, for whatever that's worth. When I ask GPT to write a Wikipedia user page, it always adds a section like "Contact me" which is rarely on regular user pages. Graham87 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed your first couple of subsequent reverts of TechScribe's edits and had scribbled some notes for possible sharing. But I haven't looked since, the link to their user talk may or may not have pinged them, and I still hope they start talking about what's going on. Thanks for the name of the detection tool, I'd been looking for it to apply it to the addition at Dar es Salaam School of Journalism. Can you try running the tool on that? As regards the user page, I'd urge caution because there's a lot more leeway for user pages on things including AI-generated text, and there's at least one WMF suggested template floating around, and a venerable tradition of ganking the code for other people's user pages, some of which do have contact sections, or even infoboxes with date of birth and parents' names; it's possible to get a really strange idea of what's normal depending on whose you look at (and now I come to think about it, there have been fashions in this and many old-timers' user pages have changed a lot as a result).

After looking at that edit by Robbandstra and making my own search for the reference, I think you're right, and that's the most serious problem with their editing that I've seen so far. I'd urge you to leave much more of a paper trail. Both for other patrollers, admins and not, and to give the user a chance to explain or to change their approach. Right now for example, I'd have stated in the edit summary of this revert that the edit changed the meaning and broke the image caption; and then I'd have templated the IP for a test edit (Template:uw-test1). Can't hurt, right?

By the way, I can't volunteer for the advisory group I've suggested at the noticeboard. But I hope a couple of admins do. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just got this (and this time, even if I had put your talk page on my watchlist, I wouldn't have gotten your message for a while yet, because I only check it twice a day). Re the user page: yes I remember the old WMF-suggested user page template (it was part of the Account Creation Improvement Project and it turns out there was a bot run to get rid of those, and the latter link shows text that's very different from the user pages at issue). Re a paper trail: that's probably (there I go again!) something I need to improve but in the particular case at issue, the IP is registered to the Magen David Yeshivah (Jewish school) in New York. The edit was made at 4:16PM their time and I reverted it at 9:42PM New York time. According to the WHOIS tool their IP range is 63.247.180.0/27 (BTW I wouldn't have dreamed of blocking it even before the Wikipediocracy thread because of their low number of edits), giving them 2^(32-27)=32 IP addresses to play with (well 30, excluding the host and broadcast addresses). I don't know how dynamic their IP address allocation is but odds are the person who made that edit won't receive the message and the first editor to get a notice about a new message would be a different person who might be confused about what's going on. I don't usually leave warnings for IP's that have made a single edit unless it was under an hour ago, unless their spammers, because our spam-fighting infrastructure is fairly extreme about paper trails. I guess a test1 template wouldn't necessarily hurt ... but I don't think it would help either. It sometimes takes me longer than average to articulate my thoughts so I don't like writing custom messages when I'm fairly sure no-one will see/respond to them. Fair enough re the advisory group. I've checked through a lot more of TechScribeNY's edits; they're pretty much the same as Robbandstra's. Graham87 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit and what ... the ... actual? It reduces my stock of good faith a bit. I'm not inclined to help them much until I have a better idea of what's going on; if they are a bad-faith sockpuppet then any help we give them will just be used against Wikipedia further down the line. This is why I've often been so vague to users like this; I've misfired several times but there's a method to my madness. Graham87 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't directly TechScribeNY's fault but this is pretty weird anyhow ... I've never encountered that before! Graham87 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've written more at the ANI that you might want to take a look at. Graham87 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm caught up :-) No worries about being slow to notice pings or write replies; I live in a state of chaos that's hard to imagine and it takes me a while to get to stuff, so I make no assumptions. You may have put your finger on something, though: being able to explain things clearly is a key admin skill, in my opinion. Work on it consciously and if possible take extra time. That said, I have more trust than some in our warning messages. They've been worked out and refined by people who cared about being clear and not unduly nasty. I do think it can't hurt to template even a school IP; it may enlighten the same person, or it may dissuade the next person. (There's still a widespread misapprehension that edits are all filtered by bots, or that the encyclopaedia is actually written under the direction of managers. Or people just don't think—the way that idiot just didn't think when he carved his girlfriend's name into the bricks of the Colosseum.) The rest I've said either at AN/I or in the off-wiki discussion. But I'd be very surprised if there's any connection between Robbanstra and TechScribeNY. Except the coincidence that they stopped editing almost at the same time, and the Zeitgeist (excessive respect for AI, bad AI-assisted search, unfamiliarity with encyclopaedic style). Yngvadottir (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Except that the possible connection between the two was brought up at the SPI. Sometimes warnings work ... sometimes they don't. The other editor brought up in the SPI and listed as possible, ParisCDG, has a different editing pattern entirely (although certainly an interesting one). Graham87 (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that statement by Izno surprised me. My own hunch, for what it's worth, is that the three are in a shared living situation, or were at the time. But it impressed me that whatever the checkuser data, Izno went on to question the validity of the blocks on Robbandstra and Skatevortex. Operating multiple accounts is not in itself a blockable offence (and sometimes someone doesn't even realise it's frowned on). And Izno questioned whether the edits themselves were really blockable; I'm not sure either, even if you'd blocked them back in August, and Izno making that statement is a very clear indication you've been too ready to block by current community standards. As regards sockpuppetry: sometimes you're right, as you were about Robbandstra and Skatevortex. You may well be right about the Victoria editor too; I considered mentioning at AN/I that I had a vague memory of long-term disruption at one or more pages on licence-plate prefixes, but my post was already long, my memory for specifics like whether it was Australian licence plates is lousy. But sometimes you won't be right. By blocking before filing the SPI as you did with Robbandstra, you were acting as judge, jury, and executioner, and although that's sometimes necessary—part of admin judgement is to identify the emergencies and act swiftly—it wasn't in this case. Especially since they hadn't edited in 6 weeks, but even if they had. If you get it wrong in a non-urgent case, that's itself damaging to the encyclopaedia by driving off a potentially educable editor (and their friends to whom they will badmouth the project). It also undermines your reputation as an admin. If you are seen to be acting abusively, users will be less likely to come to you for help, to trust your judgement, or to back you up. So I'm very happy to see you leaving user page messages, filing the SPI before blocking, and reining in the temptation to jump to conclusions. (I suspect the main reason it's me giving you all this advice and feedback is that since I'm no longer an admin, I have more time. But I should also note that I'm not discounting your service protecting the encyclopaedia from some sockmasters that you've become familiar with; and also that your expertise and work with excavating very old deleted edits are valuable to the encyclopaedia.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Old PROD tagging

Hey! I noticed that on Sherwin Burickson, which you proposed for deletion, there was no 'old prod' notice on the talk page. Just a note for future reference it's best practices (and pretty easy) to place a template:Old prod on the talk page of the article so that if the PROD is contested by somone there is a record to prevent erroneous second proposals. Thanks for your work :) Happy editing!
-- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea that template existed. I was just following the instructions at the top of the PROD page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinecrest Academy Article

Hi, I notice that on the Pinecrest Academy Article [10] you put down "Emily Roman". According to their website that is incorrect. Just wanted to know why. I also wanted to know more about the edits you made like why did you remove the founder and where did you get some of this info. Other than that you did okay on that article
Closercamera901 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Closercamera901, thanks for the compliment :-) See my edit after yours. Emily Roman heads the entire campus ministry, so she's the one to list in the infobox; I've used a different field from the template options, and a custom title. (See the reference to the "People" page cited where I mention her in the article text, and also "Our Campus Ministers".) I omitted the names of specific founders as excessive detail. I rewrote the page based on the references I found, so everything ought to be traceable to those cited references (although I have only now started an Extracurriculars section, so I see the list of sports in the infobox has no cited source.) I don't know whether you're using mobile or desktop view; is it possible you're looking only at the infobox, not the article text with its citations? Is there any other info in the article that you wonder about the source of? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

OK got it. I will take a look
Closercamera901 (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

in re:

Well, I am always looking to publish a wide variety of viewpoints/opinions/screeds, so if you have a particularly good one, I am willing to take a look at it. Perhaps it could be called "Operation Fluffless". jp×g🗯️ 10:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must decline. I'm just too much of a wishy-washy thinker and writer. I've ranted about various articles as case studies, and once WPO tried to convert one of them into a blog post, but it became apparent that I can't write clear op eds / opinion blogs. (Similarly, the only kind of article I could get to stick at Wikinews was on small disasters.) But damnit we could use a straight-shooting weekly newsletter. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Case request statement

Please note that your submission significantly exceeds the word limits at WP:ARC (almost double the 500 words per person) and so I have collapsed your most recent comment in the interests of enforcing the rules evenly. If you wish to further make any comments, please first obtain a word limit extension by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org with 1-2 sentences discussing (a) the total number of words you seek and (b) a brief outline of what you hope to include. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I wondered when someone would say something about that. No problem; what I said is there in the history as well as under the hat. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Fastily

Hi Yngvadottir -- Not looked into this (bit gobsmacked tbh to see another petition before all the questions on the process have been resolved) but my read of Fastily's comment is that they either delete or pass (ie let the tag remain). I do the latter a fair amount, as the degree of pushback on declines is wearying to the point where I only have the mental energy to do it occasionally. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for offering that perspective. The process doesn't allow for the admin to defend themself, so I hope you'll put that in the discussion. I see that Dilettante and Nythar have weighed in under by signature saying they read it as you did. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've commented in the ANI thread. I've been avoiding commenting directly to the recalls so far because it's an implicit endorsement of a process I feel is borked. (For clarity, no objection to a community recall process but this isn't a good one.) Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Yngvadottir. The Wikipediocracy-related conduct case request has been declined. While the arbitrators were closely divided, there was not an absolute majority to accept the case. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)