User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 38

December 13: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

 

A new bibliographical landscape
At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.

Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.

But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.

More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space.

And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all!



Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WikidataCon: Giving more people more access to more knowledge, report by Peter Kraker of Open Knowledge Maps
 * This is a story of my knowledge adventure in New Zealand moths via Wikicommons, Wikipedia and Wikidata, @SiobhanLeachman
 * Wikidata and Arabic dialects, research paper, DOI: 10.1109/AICCSA.2017.115
 * c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/georeferencing status, Mechanical Curator project on Commons hits 50K maps milestone
 * Historical dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text: Who wrote this?, by Tilman Bayer, WMF blogpost
 * "Anyone can edit", not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap (PDF), journal paper, Heather Ford and Judy Wajcman
 * Alpha Zero’s "Alien" Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI, MIT Technology Review, by Will Knight, December 8, 2017
 * }

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM
06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Board meeting notes
I threw the notes up at Cascadia Wikimedians/December 2017 board meeting, they need formatting ☆ Bri (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

 

Metadata on the March
From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1lib1ref campaign starts today, see The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref: also #1lib1ref introductory video by
 * Funders should mandate open citations, article 9 January 2018 in Nature by David Shotton
 * From snowflake to avalanche: Possibilities of using free citation data in libraries, translation from the German original of Annette Klein, Mannheim University Library
 * GLAM/Newsletter/December 2017/Contents/WMF GLAM report
 * Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again: Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn't act, Timothy B. Lee, 8 January 2018, Arstechnica
 * }

COI and Ɱ
Are you 100% satisfied by Ɱ's disclosure on their userpage? My understanding is that you teach this, then either there's some misunderstanding about what we have at WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:PAID and WP:ToU and teachings of best practice, or do I misunderstand something? Widefox ; talk 14:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what prompted this post, but from what I can see Ɱ's disclosure is perfectly acceptable (they state they were paid, who paid them, and which articles they wrote). Am I missing something that makes you think it's insufficient? Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See my talk. Widefox and Jytdog are hounding and honestly harrassing me with claims against me. They repeatedly insist I have a COI with the Culinary Institute of America, where I've written neutrally (as I am a historian) even though I've been a student and taken some small student jobs writing recipes or for the student newspaper. There's no grounds for such a COI accusation. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) At their main userpage? Thanks for asking, yes, Ɱ has just unhidden some disclosure on their userpage, but not all, and not per best practice, e.g. 1. "They must do this on their main user page" (emphasis own, my added wording two years ago) WP:PAID. "only live works" at User:Ɱ is irrelevant per WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:PAID, WP:ToU - disclosure applies everywhere including drafts, non-mainspace, in all discussions and is not restricted to live articles (this is a common falsehood we see trotted out by COI editors, for example with Ahn at WP:COIN). (for the lacking context here see User talk:Ɱ) Widefox ; talk 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC) (disclose my 2 year old edit)  Widefox ; talk 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant User talk so I changed the link. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You added that bit about "main" yourself diff, with no consensus or discussion, and then held me to it right away. That's barbaric. And I find it irrelevant to put on my main page that I was paid for something that was deleted. It's not a contribution to Wikipedia, not visible edits anywhere or anyhow, it might as well have not existed. It's silly. The COI page disclosure should be fine. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point I think it would be better to formally bring the matter up at WP:COIN rather than asking random users for their input (which could be viewed as canvassing opinions). Primefac (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Primefac, this thread was meant to be about coordinating COI with Bluerasberry, a side issue that came up on Ɱ's talk initiated by Bluerasberry.
 * I agree it's not helpful for Ɱ COI to be discussed here. It's discussed solely at Ɱ's talk currently, and per that thread is waiting for the unrelated (CIA?) COIN by Jytdog. Ɱ, for the record, where did I claim you have a COI with CIA? Pls strike that inaccuracy (this is about your other COIs). (offtopic: as for "harassing", the same claim at ANI was previously rejected, so best strike that incivility too). Widefox ; talk 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're complaining about then, if not the CIA. Seemingly it's the letter of the rules, like "visible", which nobody cares about, or like "main", which you wrote into the policy yourself and then forced upon me. If that's not illegal, it ought to be. And the ANI claim wasn't rejected; the ANI went nowhere, just like these conversations are. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ɱ thanks for inviting yourself to this section to discuss your COI about something I wasn't aware of (which you've incorrectly said I've accused you of, but not yet struck), but getting back on-topic...
 * This section was meant to be about COI coordination with Bluerasberry using your disclosure as example, something they initiated on your talk which is more appropriate here. You should be aware that you must disclose in discussions like this that you have a stake in COI and COI policy, (and have previously been found to inappropriately edit COI guidance whilst having a COI), so I don't think it appropriate that in a topic of COI best practice, that you get to assert such falsehoods "illegal", or dismiss guidance edit consensus that's accepted for years including my edits to COI etc that have set best practice based on reaction to your previous hidden disclosure. No, I don't think that's best practice on different levels. Widefox ; talk 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss these matters. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will wait for COIN. Widefox ; talk 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming here. Yes I made comments elsewhere to advocate for Ɱ. I am unable to discuss the case here and am collapsing the discussion because I did not participate in it here. I continue to say that the situation is not COI in any sense which I have ever seen labeled COI in any other case. At the same time - I was incorrect to push back on the conversation. Jytdog showed me relevant information of the sort which the community usually discusses at COIN, so maybe that is the place for future conversation. Ɱ has requested privacy on their talk page and I do not wish to say more here. Thanks for the discussion. I do appreciate your attention.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

COI for WiR - disclosure and behavior
The stuff below is part of what I intend to address at COIN, but perhaps we can deal with this part here, or at least start to.

Bluerasberry, you participated in this discussion. I read that discussion with increasing dismay. Here is some of what Ɱ wrote there:
 * this: The Century Association is an immensely significant organization...
 * and this: As well, I'm using this category as a very important and useful tool in creating two drafts, one on the Century and one on its members....
 * and this: Plus this category is crucial to my work improving articles on the Century Association. WP:IAR says "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I need this in place, and your opinion that the category isn't relevant enough is simply blocking my access to work, not helping the encyclopedia.
 * and this: [This is exactly the sort of organization notable for Wikipedia, more than almost all others
 * and this: And yet you're wrong. Many members have had huge dealings with the club, including President Theodore Roosevelt. His club interactions are so notable there could be a separate Wikipedia article on them
 * and this Have you written a single article on a club? Every last one of them is remarkably poor and underdeveloped. It's a fault of Wikipedia, not the clubs. It's nearly as bad as the state of food articles on Wikipedia. The wiki might look great when only viewing military topics, architecture, or science, but overall it still is rather poor. As for the Century specifically, there could be 2,000 links easily. Once my work is done, there might be.

Those are statements made by somebody who is way, way too close to the subject matter. If I had been in that discussion, they would make me go look to see if the person discloses any relationship with the organization, for sure. The third one in particular, reading all that with the paid WIR status in mind, it comes across very, very badly - basically as "I have work I am being paid to do, get the hell out of my way". (shudder)

But I don't see anywhere in that discussion where Ɱ made it clear to the other participants that he is a paid WiR for the association. Somebody glancing at his userpage would not know that either. You have to click the "show" at the very bottom, and then carefully read the description of the Century project, which only says at the very end "My work will be funded by the foundation".

I don't see how Ɱ's behavior in that discussion, his statement of his intentions for his "Century project", nor his disclosure on his userpage, reflects best practices for a WiR as described here, but rather, I would reckon that this is actually the kind of stuff that people who support the WiR program wish would not happen. This is a paid WiR acting as a paid advocate. And that project is just getting started.

I am interested in your (Bluerasberry's) ) thoughts here. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC) (tweak Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC))


 * Look, I've been working with professional archivists to write history. It's not advocacy in any way. And yes, I've had to be very vocal and stressing to defend a piece of that work (extremely useful to and time-taking for what I was doing) that was under deletion discussion. I made use of policies I know. None of that is against rules. I am disseminating the archive's collections and familiarizing the staff and organization with Wikipedia. I found these to be more of WiR roles (which often are funded) rather than COI roles. I started off with drafting an article to replace the current Century Association article, using those archives. I'm not working for the Century Association, I'm working with an independent archives organization, the CAAF. They care about using their historical records to share aspects of the club and its members. They're giving me basically a token amount of money, this is really not worth the headache. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I still admitted there might be a conflict of interest. I put it on my COI page and userpage. I only drafted edits. I made clear my relationship to the CAAF, which has an informal relationship to the Century Association. That's following WP:COI as far as I can tell. If there were any discrepancy, you should post to my talk and we could resolve it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will respond to you one time here - my question was to Bluerasberry and it was not appropriate for you to interject here.
 * Your reply (diff) demonstrates the problem. You are unaware of how badly you are behaving, and the reflexive, combative defensiveness -- not showing self control or self awareness --  is very much part of the problem.
 * It is not clear to me that you should be permitted to continue as any sort of WiR.
 * I am looking for Bluerasberry's response here, since he himself has served as a WiR and helps others to do so, and understands very well the goals and pitfalls of the program and I am hopeful that he will try to help you understand how badly you have gone astray from the goals of that program.
 * I suggest you do not reply here further, at least not in the same way; you are providing the diffs that I will be using to argue for a topic ban from the WiR program if you do not soon (soon, not now - I do not expect this will be an easy turn for you to make) demonstrate a better understanding of the WiR program. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not going to completely reply but I will make some comments.
 * Everything highlighted by Jytdog is useful discussion. For example on point number 3 about something on wiki being "crucial" for an employer, because that is never a factor in deciding what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Also Jytdog is correct that paid editing disclosure needs to happen in every conversation when a person is advocating for an organization for which they have a COI.
 * I agree with Ɱ - "this is really not worth the headache." There have been maybe 100-150 people who have tried to do Wikipedian in Residence work. So far as I know maybe 80% of those people either regretted it or would not do it again. For most people doing paid wiki work is not a positive experience.
 * "Wikipedian in residence" is a community designation. Anyone can start calling themselves this but it is not a pass or permission to do anything. Everything that happens on wiki happens with the support of the wiki community, and if there is ever pushback or questioning, then users get the choice to either disengage with their activity or answer to community review. If wiki community review calls someone to process then being a Wikipedian in residence will not affect how the process proceeds.
 * The short answer explanation of "Wikipedian in residence" which I give most commonly is that a Wir is someone who is employed to share information in the field of expertise of their employer, and that does not include editing about their employer. The more expertise that a Wir shares, then the more grateful the Wikimedia community is for their engagement.
 * I cannot speak further to this. While I would like for the Century Association to have an ongoing collaborative relationship with the Wikimedia community, and while they do have interesting and unique archival materials to share, it is hard for organizations, the Wikimedia community, and a hired Wikipedian in residence editor to negotiate priorities. When there is any conflict, any wishes of the Wikimedia community always come first, so getting Wikimedia community support for all engagement is essential to progress in a project.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lane, that was very helpful.
 * If you and MJ are willing, the thing that would be most helpful in my view, would be for you to discuss with MJ, the goals of his WiR project with Century. The WiR page makes it pretty clear that the goal of the WiR should not be to expand content about the organization hosting the resident but rather to use the organization's resources to improve content about other stuff (for example, using images from the British Museum to illustrate articles about artists or your work with Consumer Reports, adding content about toasters or drugs).  But MJ's work seems aimed at writing about Century itself... which is the wrong goal, I believe.  Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you and MJ are willing, the thing that would be most helpful in my view, would be for you to discuss with MJ, the goals of his WiR project with Century. The WiR page makes it pretty clear that the goal of the WiR should not be to expand content about the organization hosting the resident but rather to use the organization's resources to improve content about other stuff (for example, using images from the British Museum to illustrate articles about artists or your work with Consumer Reports, adding content about toasters or drugs).  But MJ's work seems aimed at writing about Century itself... which is the wrong goal, I believe.  Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you do review a Hospital article for me
Hello! Could you do review a Hospital article for me: Mount Carmel East ? I am mainly a photographer and active on Commons but I am trying a hand at article writing and would appreciate a review maybe even some comments if you are so inclined. I will confess this is my first article and am open to all comments positive and negative. I would like to be better at contributing to en:wp so if I am doing something wrong please tell me. There is no rush to this at all to this request just whenever you have a spare moment. Thank you in advance -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Planned Signpost editorial
Hey Lane, long time no talk, I hope that you're well! Am thinking of writing an editorial later this year about how 1,800 or so of our Anatomy articles are going to turn 100 (as at least 1800 use content from the 1918 Gray's Anatomy). I was going to use that as a platform to talk about some of the issues we've faced in the anatomy space based on that, and also thinking about writing about the use of public domain sources in the medicine / anatomy space, which I thought you may know a fair bit about. Would you be interested in collaborating some time later this year? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the easiest way for me to start with this is for us to meet by video or phone chat and type and talk at the same time. Having a voice conversation to get an outline of this helps to get a foundation and recruit other supporters sooner.
 * I would enjoy joining this, thanks for pinging me. I will email you now...  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hiya
We are applying for our first big Wiki grant. Please consider [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/BlackLunchTable/BLT_2018 endorsing us! ] :) Thanks!--Heathart (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

OTRS NYC based inquiry
Could you take a look at ticket:2018020110012386

As an aside, I think we should have a more organized way of responding to this type of request - someday we ought to come up with something. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice about this New York City inquiry, which I will refer to Wiki NYC.
 * I do not know what to do about these sorts of issues in the longer term. In this particular case, I happen to know that Wiki NYC is already in contact with this organization as of a few days ago. Perhaps they are still in the process of writing to all available channels and that is why they wrote here also.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A request in NYC is relatively easy. I'm more concerned about requests in areas of the country (other than SF). I think we should have an organized way of identifying which regional chapters should be contacted.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no solutions but you might join meta:WALRUS/February 2018 to discuss. Post it as an agenda item.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

 

m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub
One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier
 * The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign
 * Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by
 * Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by
 * What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018
 * }

Your vote for 2018 stewards
Hi Bluerasberry,

Thank you for voting on my page. When I read "Instead the user just said that talking is not an option even on their wiki page.", I became curious. If I ever ignored you or made you feel like I'm a dead-end in communication, it was never my intention. Can you point to specific examples? I do know that sometimes my responses are delayed, which I do apologize for, but I don't think I ever left a comment/question on my talk page unanswered unless it is a barnstar, or a simple heads up notice.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are referencing my comment at meta:Stewards/Elections 2018/Votes/Cyberpower678. Sure, I am still interested in the issue I raised if you would have a conversation with me about it. I do not think my concern is so complicated but if possible, I do think it would be easier to go over it in a phone or video chat than on wiki. I feel like you never understood my issue well enough to be able to repeat my exact request back to me, regardless of how you felt about it.
 * First I had gone to your talk page; I cannot find my message there, sorry, but at User talk:InternetArchiveBot you still have a message that no one should use that talk page for discussion of the bot, which I find to be unusual because that means there is no obvious public place to have discussions. From your talk page I went to Phabricator at . From Phabricator at your request I went back to wiki. I confirm that I did not get community support for my idea, but also, I did not leave the discussion believing that you or anyone else understood my concern well enough to dismiss it. I might have my own fault for poor communication but I still wished that you could have heard me out to the point of demonstrating understanding of my base concern.
 * I do not think this issue needs endless conversation and if you cannot come to terms with it from past conversation then I could start fresh with short, direct questions. Let me know what is easiest, most fun, and feels best to you. I appreciate what you do and have only support, not criticism. I only poke at the tiny problem because I like the big picture results so much.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you on IRC? We can communicate there if you'd like.— CYBERPOWER  ( Be my Valentine) 18:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not usually but I can jump into a room through IRC if you direct me. Where should I go?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <- Click the connect button to open the web interface. I take it by your previous response you have an IRC nick and cloak?— CYBERPOWER  ( Be my Valentine) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the chat today, which resulted in Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_145.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Pan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pan (Metropolitan Museum of Art). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

February 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

AfC notification: Draft:Lucretia (Raphael) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lucretia (Raphael). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

wishing you well
Dear Lane, In my haste to leave the meeting last evening I didn't wish you well on your new adventure in North Carolina. I hope your departure is only temporary. If you need a contact at UNC my former boss is now the dean at the journalism program. I wish you well and hope to see you at some Wiki-activity somewhere. all the best, Ron Sexton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Sexton (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated
Hello,

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

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

Signpost help
Lane, thanks for your quick response to my call for help. Regarding this, don't worry – it was strained in my own mind too. (I was trying to make light of low scores in soccer vs American football.) ☆ Bri (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Joining for WP:420?
Hi Lane. Just wondering if you plan to join the WP:420 collaboration again this year? I did't see your name on the sign-up. Hope you can do it. I've been working on a good redlist for newcomers, and getting some social media outreach started that might help to attract them (I hope). ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Great minds
I proposed this before reading your proposal. Thoughts? Should we cancel mine, which is shorter in time and scope? Or leave them there and let WMF sort it out? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Saw your feedback on the op-ed page, and the endorsement; thanks. By the way I'm a "he" here, though the gender-neutral language is fine if you prefer it ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)