User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 42

Question about 2019 Arb voting
Hi Lane - is Arb voting based on consensus as with an RfC or is it based on the popular vote? Atsme Talk 📧 14:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of those determine the election result. The election winners will have the highest score in the calculation Support/(Support + Oppose), as decided in 2012 at Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012. I am enjoying and appreciating the intense discussion about the election rules at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

welcome
i m from Chittagong Azamvai (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

r/Varanasi Subreddit
Hi, someone has requested your subreddit r/Varanasi: https://www.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/comments/dcw0og/requesting_rvaranasi_sub_moderator_is_inactive/ 2001:DF0:465:148:0:0:0:0 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2019 (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) 04:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:OWE 18-OCT-2019
Hello! I left some feedback to your post on my talk page where I've tried to describe how the new system works as best as I understand it to, and gave additional feedback (thank you again for the opportunity to give it). The new system looks impressive, nice work! Take care Regards,  Spintendo  20:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Stamets RFC
Hi Bluerasberry, I see that you wrote on the Stamets RFC closure that "The RfC is fuzzy and not in the formal process." Could you elaborate on what you mean by "not in the formal process?"Dialectric (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is not a strict rule about formal process but there was no rfc template which means no plan for calling for uninvolved third party comment and no end time planned as this went beyond the one-month norm now into 60 days. All this is fine. Templates are not required but it gives me pause wondering why this has gone on so long, and is there some reason for the lack of template. I think not; just this discussion happened this way.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Using a template to establish a clearer end time makes sense.Dialectric (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on Child Marriage in US Article
Hello, I am a student at Rice University who is interested in expanding the general population's exposure to human rights issues. I noticed that you are an experienced Wikipedian and I would love to get feedback from you. I am currently working on theChild marriage in the United States article and would welcome any reviews or revisions that you can give. Thank you in advance. Mkhurley19 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Saturday Nov 16: Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharing
Hi Blueraspberry! I just stumbled upon WikiProject Sharing while going through a list of WikiProjects. It looks like you created it as a draft, but it never quite spread its wings and flew out into the world. Was there every any follow-up to this idea? I can't recall ever seeing any other location here or on Commons that fills this niche. Ajpolino (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, same list, came upon WikiProject Transporter Classification Database. Looks like this one didn't come together. I could move it to WP:Molecular Biology's space, or redirect there (or to their MCB taskforce, or to genewiki's page)? Or I can just mark it as a defunct WikiProject and move on. Thoughts?
 * Thanks for asking. About Sharing - I still like the idea, but no, there is not anywhere in Wikipedia any platform for publicly logging information requests. Yes, sort of, I am still experimenting with the idea. At meta:Right to information I have a draft system for the Wiki community to make requests to the Wikimedia Foundation, and at Organization Wants Edit I have a system for surfacing corporate edit requests from private email into Wikipedia's public forums. I still want to work the idea but no, I have not identified others ready to go along. This sharing project has been stale for a while, but I would like to work it to sort information requests into wiki, from wiki, and internally in wiki.
 * For the database that was 2014 and nowadays integregations like that happen in Wikidata. Here is d:property:P7260. From the content perspective this seems like a molecular biology project but actually the solution to this was in Wikidata and not in any content interest. I marked it as historical.
 * Thanks for checking out both of these. If anything here interests you then I would talk more.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! I've added Organization Wants Edit to my watchlist. I'd be happy to help respond to queries/requests from organization reps from time to time. A central clearing house for these requests seems superior to the current Category:Requested edits where requested edits seem to slip through the cracks sometimes. Also I agree it would aid community scrutiny to have a central board for this rather than semi-private email requests. Thanks for leading on this! If there's some way I can help let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for suggestions of improvement
Hi Lane! I am a student in a WikiEd course at Rice University. I'm working on Immigrant health care in the United States and the bulk of my contributions have been on the section I added, titled "Health care in immigration detention centers," as well as some re-organizational efforts that I've described in my sandbox! I was wondering if you could take a look at my edits when you have the time, and let me know what improvements I can make! As well, I've struggled a little to find appropriate images to illustrate the article with, so I was wondering if you might have any thoughts on that. Thank you for the help! Amymu123 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will reply on your talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Lane! I will re-do the edits. Since many of them are structural, would it be alright if I just redid the written content for you? My sandbox also has the bulk of my edits, if that would be easier to separate out my work from that of previous authors. Thank you so much Amymu123 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Lane! I'm so sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to quickly follow up on my request for help. My final Wikipedia contribution is due soon, but I do have an extension regarding responding to feedback. If it is possible for you, would you be able to look at my contributions as soon as you can? I can also direct you to my sandbox, which contains all of my edited work. Thanks again! Amymu123 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Fix link"? for database dumps
It's not fixing a link if you have usurped the redirect. I also don't think you should be replacing a redirect to a how-to-guide to replace it with a draft page. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are commenting that I am converting WP:DD links to Database download. WP:DD was established in 2005 and had 50 use instances before I started converting them to the full link. Yes, it is the usurpation of a redirect, but this is not a popular redirect with much active use. I will take it to the talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Database_download  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dec 18: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Merry XMAS!
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,  I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Belated holiday greetings


Belated holiday greetings. Merry Christmas and happy new year.

↠Pine  ( ✉ )  05:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bluerasberry!


Happy New Year! Bluerasberry, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Eddie891 Talk Work 17:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate redirects
Please address Wikipedia_talk:Prices ASAP. I believe this is the most shocking deception of editors via a redirect I can ever recall having encountered on Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it challenging to enter a discussion which starts with me facing an accusation of a shocking deception. If I entered this discussion and talked about my edits, then I question my ability to do so while giving appropriate respect to the intense emotion over there. If I entered the discussion and talked about the expression of emotion, then I think that I would like to join with a mediator, because that discussion is high tension. Emotion does not translate very well in plan text on the Internet, and I question by ability to communicate clearly in an environment which seems to merit sincerity rather than any particular objective action on my part.
 * My first thought is that I should seek a mediator to join the discussion. What do you think of that? What would you propose?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Misinfocon coming up in in DC
Hi Lane. I thought you might be interested in the upcoming Misinfocon conference. The conference itself will look at misinformation in the health space, and there will be an editathon going on at the same time plus the previous day, focusing on climate change. I got a travel grant from the Credibility Coalition to help with the editathon, so I'll be there. It would be lovely to see you if you can make it. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. One of the Misinfocon organizers asked a bunch of us last month, "Does any one by chance want to deliver a presentation on the promise of crowd sourced content websites on delivering, reliable, accurate scientific information to different groups of audiences. I’m flexible on the specific angling of this but would love to have the wiki group represented." Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed I am going. I am not in regular contact with the organizers - are you talking with them, and can you advocate for us to speak? I am ready to support anyone in a presentation and I am always ready to speak. However, if you or anyone else would take the stage, I would prefer to support you by sharing my own presentation notes. In short - I am ready to present on wiki, medicine, science, etc; but if anyone else would do this, I have insight onto the landscape and would share to make anyone else do their best.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Terrific! I've advocated for you to speak. I will follow up with them in the coming weeks. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 Wikimedia Café
Hi Bluerasberry, are you able to attend the Wikimedia Café at the new meeting time of 11:30 AM EST on Saturday, 25 January? Please let me know by signing up to attend the meeting, or pinging me here if you are unable to attend. Thank you very much. ↠Pine  ( ✉ )  00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Climate apocalypse article
Hi Blue Raspberry! You showed some interest earlier with the climate apocalypse article and left some helpful feedback on my page. I've made some (big) additions to the article in terms of organisation of content with lots of new sources. I was wondering if you'd like to take a look or if you had any ideas? We can chat on the talk page for the article if you'd like! Best, Eben Ebenwilliams (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I happened to visit this page, and saw your note. thanks for this note re the article climate apocalypse. I will be interested to take a look as well. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sm8900. That'd be great, thanks! Ebenwilliams (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Jan 22: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Identity verification
I'm not sure how I stumbled across Identity verification, but I would like to discuss how I can help improve it.

My motivation is twofold:
 * 1) I handle a lot of such requests at OTRS (I'm currently involved in two at the moment) and it is my opinion that the general advice of editors to send people to OTRS ought to be modified.
 * 2) Given our policy of not permitting scans of typical identity documents such as drivers licenses and passports, verifying identity is challenging and I'd like to see us sort through acceptable approaches in an organized way so that those cases that legitimately belong at OTRS can be handled by knowledgeable agents

I see you've gotten some pushback on this proposed guideline, and if I'm reading the history correctly, you were actively working on it but have taken a pause.

It's my observation that many inquiries to OTRS occur when someone creates a username matching the name of the person about whom we have a biography, and someone believes that the best next step is to send them to OTRS. it is my opinion that this advice ought to be modified, so one of the early steps is for you and I and other members of the community to determine whether my view on this is valid.

It is my guess that 90% of the time that Jane Doe creates the username "Jane Doe" and edits the article with the same name, that person has created the username for the sole purpose of editing that article and is unaware of Autobiography. My experience is that once they become aware of this limitation, they are much less likely to be interested in going through the verification process.

It is my speculation that Jane Doe wants the username "Jane Doe" (as opposed to a pseudonym) because she presumes that this will carry more weight when editing the article "Jane Doe". If she knew that this were not the case and in fact should not be directly editing the article about her, the interest in verifying her identity drops considerably. We are wasting the time of editors and potential editors and OTRS agents when we give such advice.

If we are on the same page, I'd like to figure out how to make that point to editors, which might include making it prominent in this potential guideline. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you copy this to the talk page there for discussion? I think a public history of conversation would be useful. Otherwise, let me know that we should have this conversation here for now. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , done. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with humans
Have you seen https://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture-characteristics.html on objectivity and unemotionalism as a cultural value? I think you would find this non-Western view of Western-style professionalism interesting and useful while you advocate for cultural change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been performing tone policing, which lately is an activist talking point and often an action to avoid. At Flame Con (gay comiccon) one year I met Robot Hugs, who is modest but also might be the center of publicity around this concept from their comic, "No we won't 'calm down'". I recognize that I am telling people to calm down contrary to inclusivity advice, and you might be communicating that to me in an indirect way.
 * That paper you shared has a checklist of recommended behaviors. I will not agree or disagree with any of the recommendations, because there are great arguments for both sides of those decisions and more in different circumstances.
 * I had not seen this paper, and it could be a checklist for developing Wikipedia policy. Do you have ideas for where to post this paper and develop discussion to develop conduct policy?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tone policing might work better if it's directed at whole situations instead of at small bits. I hear that the research on words or small phrases is looking like a dead end – not a bad idea, but that context matters so much more that the value of individual words gets swamped.  Consider someone saying "You're a ".  That could be a plain statement of fact.  It could be intended as an insult.  It could be a way to include people or to exclude people.  It could even be meant to include people and instead have the effect of excluding them.  What matters isn't those words.  What matters is all the everything around them.
 * But even if you have a human trying to do it, there are varying ideas about what tone is proper for which situations. A dispassionate and logical description of a problem works for some people.  Other people believe that if you're being dispassionate and logical, then you don't actually care about the problem.  Still others interpret that as you feeling exceedingly angry.  And if you tell people from an "I care enough to show you that I'm angry" culture that they shouldn't show their anger, they're going to hear "Stop caring so much".
 * As for places to share it, maybe the first thing to do would be to write a proper article about professionalism with an emphasis on the cultural anthropology. Then you could talk about it at any of the usual places (e.g., WT:NPA) with an opening line like "My own culture values professionalism, but I realize that seeming uncaring doesn't work for everyone..."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a class of wiki edits which come without an expression of emotion, which is most routine edits, and some edits which do come with emotional language. When there are expressions of emotion, some are positive, like barnstars and Wikilove, and some are negative, like accusations phrased in certain ways. I think there are ways for machines to sort these kinds of attitudes, and humans sort emotional/nonemotional positive/negative also. There are grey areas but there are also some really clear situations which lots of people would call objectively positive or negative.
 * I am not shy about personal relationships. I have freely given out my video chat and phone number to many Wikipedia editors, and 100+ have chatted with me in those channels. There are lots of options for connecting.
 * I will not tell someone to withhold their emotion but anger can be a pickle. If one ignores the anger to address the issue, then that is a taboo for social insensitivity. If one addresses the anger and postpones the issue, then if the challenge is the issue, the emotional chat is not improving the situation. Addressing both at once is a challenge. In general, wiki edits and comments take seconds, but when a situation requires emotional labor, that takes both more time to perform and also carries a cost of occupying hours of thoughts. The Wikipedia community does not have limitless capacity to engage in emotional labor, yet the demand for emotional labor is increasing.
 * I want an article or guideline for whatever this concept is, you called it professionalism. I wished that academia or corporate human resources or some expert would come to Wikipedia with solutions for operating a friendly space, but so far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation at great financial cost has only identified that no such person exists and that a code of best practices will not be easy to develop. I make progress where I can and have worked on these issues continuously for several years now. I still fail often.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I need a smaller case practical outlet. There is a Wiki LGBT+ conference in a few months, meta:Queering Wikipedia. I will mediate a workshop on meta:Queering Wikipedia/Code of conduct. I do not perceive any closeness to the Wikimedia community endorsing any actionable behavior policy, but more discussion and documentation does seem like progress.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that "positive" and "negative" are the wrong concepts. I think "constructive" and "destructive" are more relevant.
 * Consider a statement such as "I never liked him anyway". Some old AI systems look at that in isolation and call it a negative sentiment, but it could be a response that builds relationships or destroys them.  "I never liked him anyway" becomes constructive if it's followed by "I'm so glad you finally dumped him.  Do you feel like going out tonight?  I really want a chance to talk to you".  The negativity's destructiveness is confirmed if the next line is "No, I won't go to the funeral for your husband."  I always need constructive communication; I don't always need positive communication.
 * Whether you "should" deal with the anger first or the objective problem first is a matter of culture. Speaking in sweeping over-generalizations, there's a "white patriarchy" approach seems to deal with the objective problem first and then hopes that Dad will stop being angry now that the problem has been solved.  I think that most of the world takes a different approach.  For example, I think that the Tend and befriend model would address the anger first.  Maybe it wouldn't "solve" the anger, but it would probably acknowledge its existence and offer emotional support.  Emotional labor can be draining, but I think it's sustainable when everyone does their fair share.
 * As for the whole community endorsing actionable behavioral policies, they already have. The Friendly space policies are a settled thing.  The existence of the Code of conduct in technical spaces occasionally surprises people, but it's widely accepted (although not quite universally, as there are a couple of people who object to it; they generally have lengthy block logs on their home wikis, too).  There are a few standards that are at least widely expected even on wikis that have no written behavioral policies (like blocking users who make legal threats against other users and banning people who upload certain types of content).  I don't know that we'll reach a point at which everyone, from every culture and personal situation will agree when and how it's okay, e.g., for editors to mention that another editor is gay.  But I think we can make progress towards a middle ground, and in the meantime, I think it's important and valuable to remember how much we already have achieved.
 * Have you considered the WP:EDP approach to codes of conduct? There's a default policy that applies everywhere, unless the local group adopts and enforces their own, in which case the local policy applies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking in, "There are a class of wiki edits which come without an expression of emotion, which is most routine edits, and some edits which do come with emotional language. ..." A problem here is edits which should come without an expression of emotion, but which either do have an expression of emotion, generally in the edit summary, or which often imply an expression of emotion, like a revert. People here personalize things very quickly, which I consider partly due to the often emotional attitude around some topics, partly to the  intrinsic limitations of typing text over the internet, which lets emotion accumulate around the most unemotional of topics, such as the MOS, partly to the difficulty a large proportion of editors here have with properly expressing emotions, and their frequent use of WP as a replacement for more usual methods of social communication, partly to the freedom many editors feel in expressing hostility here as compared to their quieter personal life.--afew of our most active disputants are in RL quite gentle people.
 * Some we can by changes to the environment without attempting to change people: I think changing 3RR to 1RR might do good, as well as rewording and perhaps even deprecating BRD. The technical fix of expanding the length of edit summaries, tho necessary for some purposes, might have had an unforeseen detrimental effect. I have proposed clerking ANI and ANB, tho this has been soundly rejected as added bureaucracy.  Further objective analysis of what actually happens here might help, but I certainly agree with the view that "  the research on words or small phrases is looking like a dead end ".   DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to deprecate BRD; I just want BRD to be properly understood. It's supposed to be semi-secret method for an experienced editor to figure out who to talk to, and it gets used as "Ha ha, I reverted you, and now you're not allowed to edit until you say Mother May I? on the talk page!"
 * 1RR can't be imposed until we go back to the old definition of "revert". Right now, if I remove one sentence of unsourced content (that isn't obvious vandalism or similar) from a page, you make an unrelated edit, and we repeat that pair of actions four times, then I've violated 3RR, because I've made four "reverts" to the page in 24 hours or less.  That really won't work with 1RR.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In the context of inclusion of underrepresented groups, this might interest you:

"Paul de Laat...examines how Wikipedia editors conceive of their participation, and how this leads them to perceive rules on Wikipedia. He concludes that, “Wikipedians either rejected [the proposal] (because it is antithetical to their conception of Wikipedia as a community) or endorsed it (because it is consonant with their conception of Wikipedia as an organization with clearly defined boundaries).”

That proposal was about PendingChanges, but I think it holds true generally. What we individually believe Wikipedia determines which changes we want to see. If we view Wikipedia as the greatest resource of all time for popular hobbies, then all railroad stations and actors and video games must have separate articles. If we view it as an adult endeavor, then we must not have any significant detail about games that the 10 year olds are playing, because that's too babyish for us. If we view it as a place to recognize who's had significant effects on the world, then we will have many fewer BLPs, and they will reflect existing power and privilege. If we view it as a place to document people whose effects are primarily seen within a smaller community, then we'll write articles about small-town politicians and niche magazines, and every person from any marginalized community will be identified as being from that community.

Related to your panel about a code of conduct, I suspect that the same thing happens. If you see Wikipedia as a battleground for the (scientific) truth to triumph over the forces of muddled thinking, then a code of conduct sounds either pointless or harmful, (harmful because it can't effectively stop people from aggravating "us", but it might constrain our range of responses to the people who aggravate us by displaying their muddled thinking). If, on the other hand, you see Wikipedia as a place to level the playing field for marginalized groups, then a code of conduct (e.g., that prohibits people from disparaging your group) is obviously good. Since reading this, I have been wondering whether asking people how they view Wikipedia (and their role here) would be useful in understanding why they support/oppose/ignore codes of conduct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Another thing: In this presentation, Celeste Kidd answered a question by saying "Sometimes people who appear to be communicating – it's not really about the information.  It's about sort of in-group/out-group value-establishing."  I wonder what proportion of the incivility is uncivil in an etymological sense (i.e., it destroys the civitas), and how much is about defining the community (i.e., communicating that the speaker is part of the community, and the target is not).  There would obviously be overlap between the two (the speaker might have erred in asserting the target's outsider status), but I am interested in whether we can get editors to understand the complications around saying that someone doesn't belong here.  I think the same words and same actions could be both civil (e.g., if directed at a spammer) and uncivil (e.g., if directed at someone because of race) and perhaps simultaneously both (e.g., if directed at a good-faith but incompetent editor).  A default code of conduct that said it's okay to say that spammers, vandals, and other disruptive editors don't belong, but it's never okay to do that on these other grounds, might be useful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You raise several subjects, each of which is interesting to me, and each of which I would discuss. I feel that this conversation is complex enough to discuss by voice or video. If you could meet to chat then I would talk and type notes.
 * You say, "The Friendly space policies are a settled thing." Of what you said this is most distracting to me, because DGG and I were in the group of about 10 people which developed these policies and applied them to the Wikimedia community. We definitely did not consider this text viable, actionable, or complete. I know that the WMF has increasingly directed people globally to adopt them, which is nice, but I am still conscious of the dozens of code of conduct conversations we have had continuously for years in New York City and beyond, and all the problems we surfaced. None of us ever intended for this to be a settled thing, and none of us intended for people to interpret this text outside the context of our values. I feel some personal failure for putting so much time and effort into this, and you cite the policy back to me as if to teach me about it when I felt that it was mine.
 * To the best of my knowledge, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor anyone in the Wikimedia community have made any attempt or first step at presenting a code of conduct. There are some obvious and inexpensive foundations to doing so. If I had to say why the Wikimedia Movement does not have a code of conduct, the most prominent reason which I see in front of me is that historically many people in the Wikimedia Foundation opposed the concept. Things change quickly. Sometimes organizational culture carries over even when older people leave. There was no money for anything a few years ago, and now there is money for everything and all new people. I do not see the lack of a code of conduct or friendly space policy as the consequence of failed attempts, but the consequence of never having made an attempt. I fail to understand and find it unsettling that you have somehow come to believe "asking people how they view Wikipedia (and their role here) would be useful in understanding why they support/oppose/ignore codes of conduct". I am missing information or misunderstanding something. Where and how do you think there has ever been a reasonably developed attempt in wiki to have a code of conduct which was resourced well enough to be worth considering?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I say that the FSP is a settled thing to mean that it is widely accepted as an appropriate thing to have, not to say that it is WP:FINISHED.
 * To answer the last question, I think we'd have to define "code of conduct". For example, does WP:CIVIL count as a code of conduct?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Saturday Jan 25: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Revision to my own role
Hi. I have revised my own role at WikiProject History. I have added a note at the talk page to reflect this. Just wanted to let you know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Update re page
hi!!! okay, now I think I may have the page WikiProject History somewhat fully revised, formatted and tightened up, organizationally, format-wise, and otherwise. feel free to take a look. thanks!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

request some help with other site
hi! I just left you a message at meta:User_talk:Bluerasberry. can you please offer some info? I need to find out where to post in discussions of civility,. addressing harassment, etc etc. I want to offer some comments, and it seems this process is only proceeding for a few more days. I appreciate any help. thanks!

sorry for this duplicate post, but I'm still trying to figure out how all these pieces fit together. at least I did take the time to find out how to link to another external wiki. I appreciate any help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

note re ideas
hi there. hey, are you in nyc? so am I. if so, is it possible for us to be in communication? I have some ideas for some wiki-efforts I'd like to move ahead with.

by the way, also, I never received your email. can you please resend it? if you do so, please let me know. I could leave it here on your talk page, but I'd like to keep it private if possible. please feel free to be in contact if you wish. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I emailed again.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

new draft of items
Hi. it was great to speak to you today. as we discussed, I have tried to write an initial draft of my ideas, just to get the ball rolling, and maybe find some way to get this process started. however, one possible concern; it's possible that I'm a little better at saying these ideas over the phone, then going to the written page and trying to describe them there. could you please tell me if the draft below is good, or alternately if it needs to be changed edited, shortened, etc in any way? I would really welcome your insights. right now, I just want to get some kind of coherent draft ready,l and then later we can look into actually implementing the ideas and efforts that we discussed. the draft is at: User:Sm8900/item draft. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Lane. okay, Ian and I are already discussing these ideas, at his talk page. I wrote a response to him ,and tagged you. You can view my ideas and my response to him at his talk page, at User_talk:Ipigott. I hope you'll go there when you have a chance, and add absolutely any feedback or comments that you may have.,


 * by the way, don't worry, you don't need to respond in depth (unless you want to, in which case, please do!!); I just need a little input from a few editors, just to let others know we already have a few people on board, and just so that this effort is not solely my idea, but that in fact I am doing on behalf of a genuine group of editors who seek to build this as a resource, and who do think this does have positive value. and of course,m you are also free to offer criticism or feedback on any and all parts of this that you may not agree with. i appreciate all your insights. Please feel free to be in touch. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

new effort set up
I left the note below for several editors. please come by when you get a chance. thanks!!

Hi, Hi all. I have just created a new WikiProject, at WikiProject Editor Empowerment. Please come over when you get a chance, and feel free to add your comments on the talk page. if you want to join, please feel free to add your name at the section for members. Right now, this WikiProject page is simply a redirect that points to a draft in my own user space. I want to retain editorial control, simply while I am still revising it enough to be ready to present to others. however, I would like to get some folks on board asap. this can be our new shared space to cover some of the points, concerns, and questions covered here. I hope you'll come over and join sometime. Please note, all comments, views, and opinions are welcome there. I would simply like to start trying to get some members there now, just to get this off the ground. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request help with new Council for WikiProjects
Hi. I am trying to create a forum where various WIkiProjects can exchange ideas and information about their best ideas, efforts, methods, and accomplishments. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. I tried to create an active exchange at WikiProject Council, but did not get very far when I tried to do so.

I would like to get some interested editors together who might be interested in helping with this idea, either with getting WikiProject Council moving again, or creating a whole new WikiProject to do so.

You can sign up to help at WikiProject Editors Forum/Members. Right now, this page is a redirect to a draft in my user space; we will move it to the project space as soon as we have ten people signed up.

eventually, the goal would be to have a few people from a wide variety of WikiProjects and varioous topical areas, working together at WIkiProject Council, to help us create a forum and an exchange for ideas and information.

Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know. If you wish, you can simply comment on my talk page to let me know any comments or thoughts on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lane's response
It was nice to talk with you by phone. I like your ideas and appreciate the effort you put into documenting this important set of issues.

I have some comments at
 * User_talk:Sm8900/item_draft_2

I will be in New York City for the WikiWednesday meetup which will be on Wednesday 18 March 2020. If you are interested and available join me at METRO then and there.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  17:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * hi. ok, that sounds excellent. I will definitely try to be there. however, unfortunately, I have some family engagements around that time, so I can't be 100% definite that I can attend the meeting on that date, but I will try. if we can make contact on that date, that's fine. if not, I hope we can communicate after that, through alternate methods.and of course, please feel free to keep writing to me here, in various talk pages at wikipedia. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail
↠Pine  ( ✉ )  03:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft of ideas for project page
Hi. you had asked me to prepare a proposal to present to others at WikiProject Council, to explain the changes that i wish to make, and to get their feedback and input, on what they think of the ideas.

I have prepared a brief, concise draft below.by the way, I have made a sub-section break for this draft, just to make it easier to edit; obviously, if you wish to remove the section break, that is totally up to you.

could you please let me know what you think? thanks!!
 * Make page more accessible for editing; make it more inviting for members of active WikiProjects to come there and participate
 * remove decorative images on section breaks on main page; replace them with regular section breaks which allow users to edit easily
 * Provide links to web pages, databases or resources, that provide data on which WikiProjects are active.
 * Provide links to specific WikiProjects, or names of specific coordinators, where editors can obtain input on how to manage WikIprojects
 * Provide links to the WikiProjects that are most active
 * group WikiProject links by subject area
 * Provide names of a few of the WIkiProject coordinators who are most active, in order to enable others to request their feedback
 * Provide sections or pages where WikiProjects can provide updates on their efforts, or hold discussions about current methods and developments
 * this could be a sub-page of the project page, or it could be a shared workspace on a talk page.
 * this could be a sub-page of the project page, or it could be a shared workspace on a talk page.

ok. what do you think? I have deliberately kept this very concise. I can add to it if you wish.

Also, for discussion of this proposal, there are various options as to where to discuss this. if you wish, I could set up a shared talk page in my own user space. or I could make it a sub-page of the WikiProject Council; however, before I would add any pages there, I would need at least some other editors who wish me to do so. Any options for this is fine with me.

Could you please let me know what you think of the ideas above? does this accord with what you wish me to present there? you had indicated a while back that you had some agreement with some ideas. I am willing to adjust or revise these in any way that you might wish. feel free to let me know which parts need changes, or need expansion, or need condensing; whatever you prefer is totally fine. I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)