User talk:Bri/Archive 11

Uncivil

 * please do no leave uncivil and unconstructive messages on my talk page thank you. 72bikers (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to help you not get boomeranged, bub, but whatever. – Brianhe (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6
Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:
 * Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
 * One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
 * Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

COIN
I had a request that you archived. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Undid the archival. – Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you have the ability to honor the request? If not, what do you suggest I do? Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Guessing that this is about continuing to work on OneSky although it has been deleted. What you want is probably outlined at WP:REFUND. Any admin can bring the article back to your userspace if you want to work on it. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

SPI - Omamme
Though you may want to see this since it looks like you were chasing this one a few months ago. Maybe you can remember the article(s) about slot machines that was/were previously deleted. Sockpuppet investigations/Omamme. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. The OM case has been linked and the SPI staff may choose to merge it. I don't see anything else to be done on this one. - Brianhe (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not sure if it is necessarily Orangemoody. I know the one account was "linked" to the case but not sure if it was on edit conduct of IP search. Thought it could be a different group that is close, but not 100% confirmed connected. Either way, hopefully it will be taken care of. Could probably blacklist most of the references from those article as well as they are not reliable sources and more likely here to promote as opposed to contributing the encyclopedia. Anyways, thought I would loop you in as it looks like you were on their trail once before. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Found another Omamme-OM connection and added to the SPI. - Brianhe (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 paid editor help
Hi Brianhe I am new for Wikipedia. I am trying to update my chairman current designation and some small content. Page name is Kushagra Bajaj. I'll be very thankful if you can help me to do this. I've already updated designation but how some reason you have deleted. You can find current designation at Bajaj Group. Can you please suggest me what should i do to update this. - User:Pankaj.kumar89 (talk)
 * Because of my personal philosophy spelled out at User:Brianhe/BOGO, I will not review your work for you or any other paid editor. Brianhe (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck!
I wanted to wish you luck with your RfA. It's a unique experience! Expect to answer a lot of questions, it's just par for the course these days but at least now editors are limited to 2 a piece. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz. The RfA reform is one of the reasons I decided to go ahead and accept the nomination. Brianhe (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to echo 's wish of good fortune. (I missed their RfA, as I have just gotten involved in that process, but would have supported them as well). I think you'd be an asset to the mop.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the good wishes Onel, also your comment on cordial disagreement on approaches to paid editing. - Brianhe (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My only advice to you, Brianhe, is to pace yourself. It's a long seven days and you can time when you respond to questions. Editors expect a timely reply but it doesn't need to be immediate. Compose your responses, don't react. By mid-RfA, you can feel worn out and I think I passed my RfA partially due to stamina. Hang in there! Liz  Read! Talk! 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the miss-step on Q-6 and not being signed in. I'm a forgetful old geezer. But I do remember the good advice I got at my RfA. "Fight the urge to reply to every Oppose. Let others respond for you". Good luck! Buster Seven   Talk  08:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just wanted to eliminate the chance that someone was gaming RfA and/or testing me that way. - Brianhe (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A. W. Piper
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A. W. Piper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ladbrokes
Hello, I don't know if I should be bothering you with this but I read that you do COI work. At the above article the section on the loyalty card looks a bit like advertising and the section is only supported by a bad link to a gambling advert(inadvertentlly I think).Thanks.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm taking a break from COI work for a few more days. You could bring this up at WP:COIN just fill in the topic in the box then click the big button below it that says "Create discussion" and write what you just told me. Good luck! Brianhe (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will doAtlantic306 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Question for you and Nagle on how to address a potential concern?
I have a question for you and User:Nagle on how to address a potential concern. Wanting to assume good faith, on Talk:Tim_O'Reilly, User Tadghin Special:Contributions/Tadghin supposedly self-identifies himself as the subject of the article on that Talk page. I am not sure what steps were done by Wikipedia to verify this identity or not, however the edit history shows that this user who supposedly self-identified themselves also has edited the subject page of which the individual is the topic of with the self-written comment “Corrected companies I am on the board of” and edited the pages of his wife Jennifer Pahlka, to include creating the article and commenting “Added Jen’s role as Unted States Deputy CTO” with the White House, see Special:Contributions/Tadghin. How should this apparent possible conflict of interest be investigated since it seems to span years? The same user also has edited the page for White House CTO Todd Park which if this individual is the person that Special:Contributions/Tadghin self-identifies himself as, has a close professional relationship with per and edited Maker Faire that the subject's company  spun-off the organization that sponsors these events. WatchDogUS (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Related to this, if you look at the history for Jennifer Pahlka, not only will you see edits by this supposed self-identified user, you will also find edits by a user using the same first and last name, which incidentally is also this person's exact same Twitter handle, as a government agency CTO that worked with the subject of the article: see Revision History. Again, wanting to assume good faith, it may be an editor is just using the same name however it is the same exact name and Twitter handle? WatchDogUS (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm taking a break from COI work for a few more days. You could bring this up at WP:COIN just fill in the topic in the box then click the big button below it that says "Create discussion" and write what you just told me. Good luck! Brianhe (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

unsuitable images.
I found another image that looks kinda suspicious. What is the procedure for having images checked? Where do you report this kind of issue. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does look suspicious to me too. You can try TinEye online to try to find a match for the original. Or you can ask one of the Commons admins for advice. Brianhe (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just right clicked and google image searched it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an option too but not for me :) I use a different search engine for various reasons. – Brianhe (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which one do you use? DuckDuckGo? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've missed the question above? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not say, it's complicated and involves RL employment. Brianhe (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Sipkins for deletion
I'm sorry, but I strongly believe this article does not bring a net-benefit to the project and have started an AfD discussion at the usual place : Articles for deletion/Charles Sipkins Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your request for adminship results
I regret to inform you that your request for adminship has been closed as unsuccessful. I encourage you to review all of the comments and discussions there (and on the talk page) apply any suggestions as appropriate. I encourage you to apply again in the future. If you have any questions, please let me know. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for what this community put you through, and I really wish that had let the decision go to cratchat, instead of closing such a contentious RFA himself, with no input from his fellow crats.  Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just said the same thing to him myself.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Such as it is, you had an authenticate experience of what Wikipedia has to offer. These processes are hyper-critical and a bit aimless. I think you, and many others, are judged by a philosophical standard that expects far more than is necessary for the community to assume the small amount of risk of assigning admin tools. Sometimes I feel that being a Wikimedia admin means projecting a bland, positionless corporate stance modeled after the inhuman communication of the traditional PR industry. Even if someone has controversial opinions - not that you or anyone else with declined RfAs do - I am not convinced that individual's opinions are a standard by means of which admin tools ought to be assigned. In any case, I hope process was meaningful and insightful to you, and that it informs your thought on community governance. I appreciate that you are one who has thoughtful conversations with others, and that you encourage the consideration of multiple points of view.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll work with you on wording the next one, if you like. I think this was not as much a question of standards, but of the effect that steamroller tactics can have on apparent consensus.  Please do not let this inhibit your good work--it is much more important that you continue it as you have been doing than you become an admin.    As for where things stand on the coi question, we should talk.  DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll echo DGG's comments... you do good work, don't let this get to you. Take some of the comments to heart, some of those who voted oppose are editors who I have a great respect for. As I said in my support, I don't necessarily agree with your stance on COI editors, but I respect it. Personally, I think that since they are here to stay, I try to work with them, to limit the amount of POV pushing. But I completely get where you are coming from. Those RfA's can be tough. Take care.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry. If do decide to go for an RfA in six months (and I hope you do) please consider soon revising the essay that was made grist for the mill, so that it is either more clear that this is where you hope the center of gravity of community consensus will go and that you understand it is not there now, or make it more of a reflection on how to manage COI given the current consensus on these matters.  Either way it becomes more clear yet, that the essay doesn't reflect how you would use the tools.  It was so terrible to watch people whip that up into some big scary monster.  I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Go community wikia. so wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.45.86 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry your RFA didn't go through, Brian. Ultimately it was not a reflection upon you but upon the controversial area in which you work (COI editing) and a fear that you might harbor extreme views on the subject, particularly with respect to paid editing. I'm not sure how to allay fears in the future, but that is definitely where lay the nexus of opposition. I would encourage you to move away from the "Buy One Get One Free" rhetoric, which definitely was one of the thing which got the sheep herd running down the wrong path. I look forward to supporting you again in a future run six months or a year hence. best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I, like everyone else here, hate to hear that your RFA didn't go through. But, I want you to know I respect your work, as it's a very important piece to ensuring we keep this encyclopedia going... And I hope that the result of that RFA doesn't hinder your motivation to keep helping. - If you ever need any assistance with any administrative work, don't hesitate to contact me; I'm here for anything you need! <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed too. Not in you, but in our fellow editors. What seemed like a walk in the park turned into a hail storm. On the human side, I know you must be disheartened by the result. Be refreshed by the overwhelming # of supporters you had. I know by experience that it's not an easy time. But you are not broken, just wounded a bit, and you will recover very shortly.  Best to you and thank you for the effort.  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Also, I offer my time and effort when needed to combat paid operatives that endanger the future of a fully volunteer editing community.
 * After some further thought, I would have moved from oppose to support if there was enough time—your nonetheless excellent work on countering COI editing itself is commendable, trumping the premises of my opposition. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 16:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to chime in here and express my regret. I think that you fell afoul of the general attitude toward COI, which is far outside the real-world mainstream. I don't see this changing at all either, and I think will require Foundation leadership that I don't see happening. As long as COI is a voluntary guideline, which editors interpret as a green light, there will be no change in the current situation and it will infect all manner of Wikipedia processes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Just to add one point: I see that a number of people have suggested that you tone down your honest view of COI, so as to gain more support in six months to a year. First I don't think it will work, and secondly I don't think it's worth it. Just my opinion, your mileage may different completely, but I think that your value to the project is in your integrity, which I would encourage you not to compromise for the sake of a position that everybody keeps claiming is "no big deal." Well, if it's no big deal, then your views on enforcement of a widely-ignored guideline shouldn't matter. If they do, then why dignify a corrupt process? Coretheapple (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support' - <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * responding to that, Core, it is not at all clear to me that Brianhe would use the tools as aggressively as one might think from reading that essay. Admins do have a responsibility to use the tools in way consistent with the community consensus.  Yes they can help move community consensus and yes they can actually create policy by gradually taking actions that build up into a practice that then get encoded as policy.  But admins who do take aggressive action on the edges of community consensus do cause a lot of turmoil - that was the concern that got whipped up into a scary monster of certainty that he would be one of those.  Based on what I know of Brianhe, I don't believe he would wield the tools that way and that is what I asked him to clarify in his essay.  Not to sell out. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume we're talking about the same essay? I'm referring to this one. It's an excellent, informative essay. I see nothing wrong with it, nothing that requires "clarification." It seems clear. Of course, he may feel differently, since it is indeed his essay in his user space. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problems with the essay for someone who wants to be an administrator are that you need to have some answer to those who are very concerned about privacy/OUTING/content-not-contributor. The essay doesn't mention any of those words or concepts. Doesn't even mention  them.
 * (and the value the community places on that nexus is very very high, deeply rooted, and broad. (Heck the WMF sued the NSA over privacy, and Jimbo wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about how deeply we value privacy.  You should read that op-ed if you haven't.  I know that Jimbo also has railed about "black hat" editors.  The problem for me, is that I have never seen him keep both of those boxes open at once.  He talks about one or the other, never both together.) An admin in WP has to deal with both.  And any stance on COI that doesn't deal with privacy/content-not-contributor that head on, is going to leave a significant chunk of the community with grave, unanswered concerns - it invites the shitstorm that happened.  (brian didn't deserve it, but the essay invites it).
 * The other problem is that nothing in the essay says what admins should do if they were to follow the ideas expressed in the essay. Again, this left those who advocate strongly for privacy with a vacuum, which they filled with the monster narrative about how Brianhe would run amok with the tools.  (I don't think he would)
 * So if he wants to run again, Brianhe should either fill in what he thinks admins should do based on the ideas there, or he should work over the whole thing, dealing with reality of OUTING. Ideally, both. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is astute. Yes the plunge over the cliff of oppose !votes seemed to be around a nexus of fear and mistrust surrounding application of admin powers to what was perceived as a "manifesto" to root out and destroy tainted articles, which was then bootstrapped into a phantom menace of OUTING to pursue that agenda. Which was a misperception but one that in hindsight should have been prepared for. I strongly suspect that if Jimbo were to anonymously run for admin today he'd suffer the same fate for holding his position on paid advocacy and "bright line" rule opposition to paid editing. Part of the fear/distrust is also caused by confusion over terminology: what is COI editing, paid editing, paid advocacy and undisclosed paid editing, and which is allowed but unwelcome by many, and which is against policy/TOS? Another element that should be noted is the off-wiki web forum based stealth canvassing that occurs to derail admin hopefuls with certain discernable points of view. Given all that, I wonder if any reform-minded candidate is facing a hopeless task in a run for adminship. To deal with current and future issues we need an active, energized and growing admin corps, not what we have, which is the opposite.  well: "The fact that pitting distrust of COI against inclusionist tendencies now tends to favor the inclusionism, and even punish those who favored caution and practicality, doesn't bode well and is clearly gameable." – Brianhe (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't be hopeless.  In my view efforts to address COI are gaining wider consensus.  They are.   But it is gradual, and those working on the front lines really need to remember that deep root of privacy and be engaged with it, always.  I have tried to lay out my thoughts on the tension between the "content-not-contributor" root, and the strong desire to protect the integrity of WP, on my userpage.  I think you have a great chance of succeeding on your next go round if you clarify you essay - make it more reflective and dealing with privacy now, or make it very clear that the writing is a "Vision" for the future - where you hope consensus will go and also add content showing how you would use the bit in the Wikipedia that exists now.  You are good egg, Brian.  (there are people very concerned about COI who are pretty hopeless and say and write extreme things- - to me they don't seem to understand how things change in a community like WP; it is tidal, huge, and slow. )  Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Brianhe, I don't see anything wrong with tackling the issue of outing, by simply saying that nothing in your essay should be construed as justifying outing, and that you don't agree with "witch hunts" and "investigations" either on- or off-wiki. Indeed, your essay does not mention "outing." While I feel that outing is raised in the context of paid editing more as an excuse than a valid fear, it can certainly be addressed without diluting the rest of your essay. My own personal feeling is that paid editing is a Foundation issue, not one that should bother individual editors, but I nevertheless commend your dedication to dealing with it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * More exactly, I think it possible that the views on how this should be done are somewhat different between most of those who are actually doing the work, and many of those who have less immediate realization of the problems. I urge more people to participate in fixing  COI articles and dealing with those editors. This will provide everyonewith more information upon which we an form a stable consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I think that some of the opposes have been overly cautious and didn't evaluate your entire Wiki-career in due weight, they certainly contain a lot of useful advice to move forward. Don't get discouraged and keep on with your generally good work. If nothing else, this RfA showed that COI is a focal topic of discussion and will need further attention. GermanJoe (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We never had a chance to interact in the past, but from what I saw at the RfA I still think that you deserve to be an admin. Congratulations on all the votes of support and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, boo! Better luck next time. Ping me if you're running an RfA again as I will support you, you are Good People IMO. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't been active lately so I missed your rfa. I was dismayed to learn that it was not successful; I think you would make a great admin. Vrac (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, Brian. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for putting yourself forward as an RfA candidate, and say that I look forward to the day when I can come to you to resolve a minor problem that requires an administrator's tools.  You handled yourself well in the face of withering -- and often unfair -- criticism.  One day, I hope some of our best and brightest will learn how to evaluate their fellow best and brightest without eating their own.  I look forward to supporting your next RfA.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed the RfA, but wanted to say keep up the good work. I agree with DGG's comments here, and talking about COI work and comments about it in the RfA, I put more weight on the opinions of those most experienced in attempting to help with COI / undisclosed paid editing. The problem with the RfA is that everyone else may see that as a local consensus (not that I think there is any consensus yet on issues like BOGOF). Speaking of which, although you and I have been the most explicit in trying to document our thoughts, reasoning, experience and analysis about COI/undisclosed paid editing in each of our essays, I'm quite sure that WP:BOGOF needs a cleanup and a revisit - it was more about expressing what I see as two equally legitimate views - one which is the current consensus of "fix the content / edits-not editors / AGF / bite" and one (sometimes expressed by others as "BOGOF") which is a newer but minor dissenting voice about how that general, excellent, positive, personable wholesome value here may/or-may-not reach its limit of usefulness somewhere near this issue of undisclosed paid editing / COI (with some of my WP:OR analysis thrown in). Towards the end of editing it I realised that this may be more about systemic bias rather than volunteer drain. Time will tell really. DGG is right - getting more editors to helpout would be a way forward. For those of us who've invested time in trying to help out in COI, the personal drain / editor weariness may feel dominant. I have to say that I myself don't have an answer and consider it all a very fine line balancing act. Anyone who can be effective in a controvercial, heated and monetized area like COI has my vote for using the mop for enforcing mainstream consensus views. Widefox ; talk 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Brian, the support expressed in my nomination still stands unwavered by the arguments put forth by the opposers. Although I respect them and thank them for their participation in the RfA process, I find their worries that you might become a rogue admin crusader to be unconvincing. I don't believe that you would abuse the tools but instead would have used them to help reduce some of the admin backlogs.

I believe that Wikipedia needs better communication mechanisms. The messages carried by the opposers had not made themselves apparent on either your talk page or to the others who work at COIN before this RfA at least not anywhere that I have seen. Your RfA appears to be a costly survey in trying to understand where the community's collective conscience stands on the issue. This seems disjointed and sends mixed signals in my opinion. I would like to have seen all of the opposers offer constructive criticism with suggestions for improving. Some of their replies are a disappointment in that regard, particularly some of the admin opposes. I would hope going forward that everyone who took part in the RfA would lend you a helping hand in the spirit of collaboration. You may want to stretch your legs a bit and try helping at some of the other noticeboards, the help desks, or ref desks. This experience might do you good.

has made a very kind offer to you above about helping word the next one and I would urge you to take him up on that. You would find yourself in very good hands. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributions of Jeremy112233
Most of the pages created by Jeremy112233, seems to be promotional in nature. Its surprising to see that the editor has created 558 pages and doesn't know the neutral point of view. Nearly, all of the pages seems to have a sort of WP:COIN. Ireneshih (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Your deletion of death notice on Love Family
Yes ... I know I didn't have a citation for that edit, however he did indeed die and the memorial is this Saturday. There is an event page on Facebook but I doubt that would fly as a Wikipedia citation especially since the event page will be deleted. I can't find a news article yet so don't know what to do. htfiddler (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also searched for official news on this event but was unsuccessful. What we have to do is wait until it's reported in reliable sources. The false reporting of individuals' deaths is one of the reasons the current WP:BLP policy exists. Of course I might be wrong about any of all of this; you are more than welcome to ask at WP:BLPN where there are experts on writing encyclopedic articles about people. - Brianhe (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How to handle an undeclared paid editor
Hi Brian, I was wondering if you could point me to where to turn for advice on how to deal with an undeclared paid editor (User:CLS Public Affairs). This seems to be an account for [CLS Strategies http://www.clsstrategies.com/] and (from their editing history) it seems like Columbia Law School is one of their clients. You'll see they were warned about their username a while ago but did nothing about it. Thanks for your help! -  t u coxn \talk 01:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't given me quite all the details and I haven't yet looked at this editor's history; so I'd recommend at this time opening a new incident at WP:COIN naming them. Please note the item at the top of the page indicating you should give the user a notice that they are under discussion. Also note that WP:OUTING rules apply during the process, as at all other times. - Brianhe (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

EagerToddler39
FYI: Sockpuppet investigations/Jassy pal. —Ruud 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7
Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

stalking
How would you know I made changes to my talk page. Why are you monitoring me? What gives you the right to tamper with my talk page. My friends did not care I shortened it. I did not change what he said. Please leave me alone and stay off my talk page you are not welcome there. Go live your life and stop harassing other people. Do I need to INVOLVE the admins here? 72bikers (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm saddened that you are choosing to further restrict your interactions with other editors this way. It was my intention to work with you some more on our areas of common interest such as the motorcycle articles you've been editing lately. But of course it is your choice to choose not to. I'll just say here that I watch a lot of people's talkpages and chime in from time to time. That's a normal part of Wikipedia culture and even has a name - WP:Talk page stalker. But "stalker" in this case is tongue-in-cheek. Offering friendly advice, like I did for you regarding the WP:TALKO guideline, is not really stalking. Please keep this in mind as an element of WP:AGF. - Brianhe (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Recreating Sudip Bose Article
Hi Brianhe,

Can you help re-creating the Sudip Bose article? I know the tone of the article is bad. But he is a notable person. Let me know what can I do to get you started.

Thanks.

Sitaray (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Sudip_Bose. oh.  my.  god.  Bose is relentless.   there is no disclosure of your COI on that article's Talk page or on your user page. Please take care of that.Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , you should know that my position on assisting paid editors is a firm "no thanks". That should have been made more clear in my comment at the AfD, but I'm fairly outspoken about it . In this case especially, considering this article's history, I think the odds of a conflicted editor collaborating to create a good article are very low. - Brianhe (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Brian, hope you don't mind but I've unarchived the section in COIN as the discussion was not yet over, re the Sitaray paid editing disclosure, which has not yet been addressed by that user (I've posted on his talk page) or by editors on the board. If you feel strongly about it then go ahead and archive, but then I'd have to start a new discussion the paid editing disclosure and the stuff above gives it context. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I thought from your comment to Jytdog that you didn't want to draw out interactions with this editor. - Brianhe.public (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On the subject of Mr. Bose, no. But on his disclosure, yes, if he has anything to say. WP:COITALK recommends against getting drawn into fruitless talk page discussions about clients. Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:COITALK does not say that. Please stop mischaracterizing it - it is an extremely un-Wikipedian distortion at that. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please, give it a rest for chrissakes. Coretheapple (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "To justify their salaries or fees, paid editors may submit billable hours, along with evidence of their talk-page posts. Volunteers should be aware of this before being drawn into long exchanges with such editors." You really need to cut it out and stop wasting people's time. Coretheapple (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes "should be aware" is very different from any kind of prohibition on - even far from a "recommendation against" - choosing to engage with paid editors. The only Wikipedia guidance document I am aware of that advises not talking to someone is for situations where a person is so clearly grinding an ax that they are impossible to work with.  That would be in WP:SHUN. Axes, pitchforks...  i am done with this sprawling set of discussions with you.  Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I would ban you from my talk page, but I just realized that this is someone else's you are clogging with nonsense and hair-splitting, and that I banned you from my talk page two years ago. Damned if I know why. Coretheapple (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No - you are making very strong and inaccurate claims about an important guideline here, and you are even trying to spread your misunderstanding around. None of that has anything to do with hairsplitting.  Again, please stop doing that. Damned indeed. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Terrible terrible terrible! Certainly worth screaming about in three or four separate venues. Why not go on and on and on and repeat yourself for another few thousand lines, completely and bizarrely off-topic? Or better still, rather than distort the guideline, why not rewrite it to encourage lengthy discussions with paid editors? Then you can go on and on and on and on and on.... Come on! You can do it. You've only wasted eight inches of this guy's talk page. You can do better. Coretheapple (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll refute your distortion of the guideline where ever you make it, that I am aware of. You've made it now three different places that I am aware of. All you have to do is say OK, I get it, or just let it go. Instead you keep coming back with higher levels of irrationality. Jytdog (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the multiple venues, I think it's time to call it finished on my talk page. Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the detour into the insane asylum. Have re-archived the discussion at COIN, as the account explained their disclosure and it seems to be OK at the present time. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon
Hi, can I interest you and page stalkers in participating in April? Up to £200 in Amazon vouchers and books up for grabs.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Spam removal uncovering other issues
Hey first off I wanted to thank you for helping remove the punjabigrooves.com spam. I've also removed some so now we're down to 34 total, although not all of the remaining links are in articles. Are you coming across additional spam links in the process? I keep finding them and then following those, so it ends up taking forever (see User:Elaenia/sandbox). Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Ishq Vich: You Never Know. When searching for replacement references, I was unable to locate any. The majority of search results are download sites or spam blogs. Elaenia (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your asking, and appreciate your work at COIN lately. But honestly, the whole span of articles touching on Bollywood is so bad, I've given up on working them 99% of the time. In this case I made an exception because it was so blatant and the links were pretty easy to follow. I think I said it before (or maybe I stole it from someone else) they have passed the spam event horizon. My fear is that this will spread to other topic areas, and sadly, I think we're over the edge for Internet startups already.
 * I think the only really effective way to fight this stuff is as a group/community, and community support just isn't there at this time, as my RfA revealed to an extent. If you want to organize something, make sure to ping me and I'll be glad to give my input and/or participate with a group of people. But my zest for going it alone is kind of spent for now.
 * Finally, the list of links in your sandbox looks like something they might take action at on the spam blacklist. Have you thought of trying? - Brianhe (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I find spam removal demoralizing really - you find and remove some links on one article, but then you spot additional links on the article and then follow those links via Spam:LinkSearch to other articles - repeat the process hundreds of times and there's still tons of spam remaining. Worst of all, you'll need to watchlist the page to make sure spammers don't re-add the links. And what happens if you're not on Wikipedia for a few weeks or simply leave? The spam's going to flood back and probably won't be removed, judging by how long a lot of the spam remains undetected. The sheer amount of spam and inappropriate external links is astounding and impossible to tackle using existing tools because people see Wikipedia as a promotional platform and there aren't enough humans to respond. Even to use LinkSearch I have to manually copy the link just right (the base domain) and add the * wildcard in front of it before using LinkSearch. It's tedious.
 * Unfortunately, I don't see how a concerted community effort is sustainable. I'd love if there was some massive drive to rid Wikipedia of spam, promotional content and inappropriate external links, but everyone seems so focused on content and other aspects. While content is important, the maintenance of existing content and not allowing it to degrade into spam is important too. I find the uh... ultra-strict adherence to rules interesting too, as seen on Ouch my toes are burining. Honestly the system seems broken, where common sense actions aren't allowed but instead have to go through a huge bureaucracy involving several other editors before any action is taken.
 * A number of the links were inserted years ago and I'm not sure they're actively being linked, so I didn't bother asking for blacklisting. I guess that's part of the demoralizing part too - that obvious spam links can remain for months, even years, without being detected.
 * expand: After reviewing your RfA, I think it's safe to say you're interested in COI issues. I've found the majority (if not all) of the new pages for companies, organizations, and people being created by new single purpose accounts are likely COI and they're using Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Simply put, those little known companies/entities aren't really going to be known to anyone not directly connected, and most of the time, only a person who's directly connected has any incentive to create such an article. Most, if not all, of the edits inserting promotional language are from COI editors, because no one else really has an incentive to do so. That would be especially true for smaller entities too because the chance of an outsider knowing about some little known company and inserting promotional language would basically be zero. Alas, the flood of COI promotional content is too great to handle IMO, so I'm not sure how to respond because any effort editors put in is going to be dwarfed by the amount of new promotional content added by marketing and PR agencies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elaenia (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you haven't read User:Doc James/Paid editing, I recommend it. There are some very good ideas there. Also an interested base of editors, if you are thinking of starting a new initiative. Brianhe (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll read over that in more detail when I have time. After a brief glance though, I really like the idea to tighten notability requirements, but it doesn't seem the discussions on the page have resulted in any changes to policy. It also seems like change is pretty much impossible. Elaenia (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Without going back and confirming, I recall nothing on that page resulting in concrete action. The first step is to rally enduring interest in changing the status quo, IMHO. Brianhe (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiLove
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:brown; background-color:gold; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Peter Sam Fan  &#124; chat?    has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Image of a64 campaign logo
Hello, please come join me to discuss our recent edits Talk:Marijuana_tourism_in_the_United_States on this page Marijuana_tourism_in_the_United_States. Thanks! --Potguru (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A little help, please?
Hi, Bri - was hoping you had a minute to look in on a new editor - a bit bold in his/her approach - but may need to rethink their position. Not sure what the issue is exactly - probably trying to be helpful by deleting a cited source instead of tagging it or opening a dialogue on the article TP. The deleted source is high ranking on Alexa and links to the university's website but the editor claims the link is to a malicious site and deserved being deleted. Not a biggy, but would appreciate you giving it a look see since you commented on the user's TP previously. I was simply trying to be helpful to a relatively new user by explaining a bit about WP protocol, but it isn't working. Thx in advance. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As soon as I am able. Will be offline for ~1 day. - Brianhe (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not actually a new user. Quite frankly, I find your comments regarding my edit counts/account age unnecessary. If we're going to be accurate, I've actually been around far longer than you and have had tens of thousands of more edits than you, merely under an account I no longer have access to due to privacy concerns. I've also never been blocked under either account nor sanctioned in any way. I'm intimately familiar with the policies and it seems like you're the one that's not, namely that the website removed is far from a reliable source and was likely added by a COI spammer for reference spamming because that's been done multiple times with websites in the domain. It's plainly obvious that the website is a spam blog and I gave clear indications that it was in my edit summaries. e.g. WP:REFSPAM, WP:ALEXA, and WP:RS. Any editor who bothers to take a few seconds to actually evaluate the website would immediately see that it's plainly a spam website automatically generated for SEO purposes - just look at the sheer amount of ads on both sides and ads covering the "content" (disable your adblocker). A few of the claims you've made, such as suggesting leaving the unsourced statement somehow "attracts the attention of vandal bots and only serves to create further disruption" are flatly wrong. Anyway, there's nothing requiring discussion for the removal of blatant spam links and is entirely unnecessary when the edit summary provides the needed context.


 * There's also been a long history of users spamming links to the domain and it was immediately apparent to me it was a spam link (and why I tagged as such in the edit summary) due to its history and similarity to other links. For example, see this, this, this, etc. Tangentially related, Indiaresults.com has been deleted and users working for the company have a history of attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform as seen here, here, here, etc. Spammer working for the company adding links. I'll probably observe the domain for a bit further before seeing if reporting it for possible adding to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is necessary. Elaenia (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it isn't so much the link as it is the way you're going about it. A drive-by delete and run, leaving page watchers with more work to do figuring out if it was a valid edit and then fixing the aftermath.  I don't care about your block record or if you've been sanctioned or if you've been here 20 years, you still need to rethink the way you're going about things because while your work may be productive in some regards, you're creating extra work for others when you could just as easily have finished what you started if RS are the issue - just replace it.  It reminds of editors who can't be bothered to fix things but have the time to place a tag on the page. Indian articles seem to have a special attraction for vandals so I've learned to not assume every edit is made in good faith. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong - what matters is the behavior and what you leave behind.  A simple note on the article TP page would have been nice, and I'd probably be thanking you instead. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what edit summaries are for, where I clearly indicated why the link was being removed... removing refspam has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, where "refspam" is known to refer to reference spamming as defined at WP:REFSPAM. It's not as if I simply deleted the link without an edit summary or left an incoherent edit summary - the summary I left provided context for watchers to understand what's going on. The problem is you readding the content without first checking e.g. claiming it's not an obvious spam link without opening it, where it would've been obvious. There's absolutely no reason to be starting a talk page discussion when the edit summary suffices, and in fact is the common/accepted practice on Wikipedia. Even looking at the page history of the article in question, we can see people communicate the reasons in the edit summary (and it's sufficient) without needing to write paragraphs on the talk page. Elaenia (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, just lovely - it's everybody else's fault but yours. You can go through WP deleting sources and not replacing them, and that's ok with you?  I don't think so.  You're leaving information in articles that is unsourced and if there are no watchers keeping tabs on the article, then you're not helping. If there's a problem with the source, it's highly likely there's also problem with the information.  If you're going to delete a source, at least tag the removal with a cn template.  I'm done with this pass-the-blame conversation - it is not helpful. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Everybody? You're the only one who has an issue regarding the removal of obvious spam links and you re-added the spam URL without checking and called it a "perfectly acceptable source". There's likely no problem regarding the information. People add reference spam because it's undetected and difficult to see. So yes, removing reference spam is perfectly fine and should actually be done by everyone because it helps keep the project free of spam. This is all outlined in policy on spamming, which I've linked several times already. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the removal of an obvious spam website added as WP:REFSPAM. Here's a screenshot of the website - which according to you is an acceptable source which should be kept. Even if you dismiss the ads, the underlying content is gibberish. Elaenia (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the issues have been hashed out pretty well already. Recap 1) this particular source should probably go to WP:RSN if you want to delete it again in the future. 2) Best practice is to add a cn tag if a reference is removed, leaving a statement uncited. Good enough? - Brianhe (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Eko Hotels and Suites for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eko Hotels and Suites is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eko Hotels and Suites until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Takeaway (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation on Page "Overlanding"
Trying to add link to this petition started by the Overlanding Association: change org/p/european-commission-fia-allow-carnet-users-to-use-alternative-issuing-organisations-rac-treat-travellers-better, but unable to add it due to being blocked url. Do you know who to do it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.10.162 (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is reliable, you should be able to find a reliable (secondary) source with coverage. - Brianhe (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

J. Schaul deletion
Dear Brianhe,

Thank you for commenting in the discussion and again for updating my age. I'm a bit concerned because the proposed deletion discussion for my page has not taken any particular new direction, but editors keep adding the discussion to article deletion pages related to different topics. I'm not sure how that works but, my sense is that some of these editors are trying very hard to get my page deleted or is this just part of the process of review? For instance, they have copied the general deletion discussion to academic deletion and Ohio deletion pages. I do hold advanced degrees, but have never claimed to be an academic researcher. I'm a practitioner, and as a zoological curator was appointed courtesy faculty and research positions. These are just fact mentioned in the article. In additon I don't live in Ohio. I'm a zoologist and nature writer who has worked as an animal trainer both independently and for facilities. Should my article be edited to reflect that more? I don't want it to misrepresent my professional background. As a journalist, I do a lot more writing in publications than I have articles written about me and that seems to be the nature of the journalism profession. I've been told on multiple occassions that I do meet the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. So I feel that I'm being a bit unfairly treated. Am I being unreasonable? Do you have any thoughts? Thanks again for your commentary. Best Jpop73 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I support efforts to make disclosure more pain-free and less of a drama fest. We should not to try to make deletion an automatic and nasty punishment for editors like you who have questions raised. Your cooperation at COIN has been appreciated.
 * With that said, this is a tough one because there are some other eds making non-policy arguments at the AfD. The closing admin should take this into consideration when closing the debate. The best thing to do is ask if they have a policy based reason for deletion. Keep it brief because tl;dr issues come into play.
 * The other thing you can do is simply re-post what you consider to be reliable sources, at the AfD. User:Cunard kind of has this down to a science: see this example. This should be all that's needed, if the sources are high quality.
 * You might also want to review Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
 * Good luck. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing, the listings at Ohio-related deletion discussions etc. aren't anything to worry about. It's just a standard procedure – a way to get more people involved in a thinly attended debate. All the participants are expected to behave neutrally and fairly, so the listing shouldn't sway the outcome one way or the other. It might be better for the preservation of the article, in fact, since it will bring people with a subject matter or regionally-related interest, rather than people following the COI noticeboard. Brianhe (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. I really appreciate your help and advice. It means a lot!Jpop73 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. If I may ask, would you spare some time and read my essay on paid editing? I'm working on refining it and would like your perspective, as a declared paid editor. What you're facing is in part a reaction by longtime editors to some tough times that Wikipedia is facing in dealing with issues of what it should become in the future, making ourselves more inclusive yet maintaining our integrity, and how we can and should treat people who aren't here strictly as volunteers. My focus has been on undeclared paid editors, and I'm trying to make sure that's clear in the essay. - Brianhe (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy tooJpop73 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Brianhe, I quickly read through your essay, but need to read it again more carefully. Thank you for your comprehensive essay/synopsis. In the few instances that I have been paid to create an article, I explained to the person based on my experience writing them that the subject has to be notable in their field, and the content has to be neutral and non-promotional. I say the same thing to anyone who has been referred to me for a paid ot unpaid article. In fact, in the instances that I have been paid, I felt it was my responsibility to really make certain that the article get accepted, so I tend to be even more critical of their references and make extra effort to reduce the likelyhood that the article sounds promotional. I suspect that for the many that I have done without compensation, I have been less critical of what I have generated.

I understand that knowing the subject seems to be a concern to Wikipedia editors, but given the guidelines for getting an article accepted, I'm not really sure that it creates much bias from my end. That is just my opinion and I can only speak for myself. Maybe it is because I have a scientific background and I'm used to being able to criticize my own work and be objective about it. With that said, I may at times render something that sounds a little promotional, but that has more to to do with my need to practice conveying/generating content in a more neutral tone, and not because I'm trying to intentionally market the individual for their own gain. In other words, I can generate something promotional whether I know the person or not or whether I'm getting paid to write something or not. It is really often just a reflection of my writing style, which for the purposes of Wikipedia needs improvement. For instance, I wrote one for Kimberly Foss, who is a friend. It was deleted presumably because it sounded too promotional. I wrote one for Ron Smalstig who I don't know and it was deleted because it presumably sounded too promotional and although I thought he met the notability requirements, it seems he didn't. I wasn't paid for either. I just enjoyed writing biographies and I thought these individuals met the requirements. I've gotten better at writing less promotional articles as some editors can attest to, but again I'm not so sure how much of it is influenced by knowing the subject or by receiving compensation. I have ceased contributing because I have caused way too much trouble and I didn't mean to. Thank you for letting me shareJpop73 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

J.Schaul
Dear Brianhe, I commented in the discussion of the deletion page and tonight someone added the following: "Delete as still nothing to suggest any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)" I'm not sure I understand what solid independent notability means. In addition, I noticed that the first attempt to delete the article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added. I kind of feel like this is punitive and not really policy based. Is there anything that can be done to address this? ThanksJpop73 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor appears to mean he doesn't think the sources add up to notability per WP:BIO, specifically referring to the text at the top of the page that says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (boldface mine). Your reply to the other party wasn't really on point, notability hinges on biographical or critical statements about the author himself, not where the author's work was published or re-published. A better pitch would be to look for those things, if you can satisfy "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" as described in WP:NAUTHOR point #3. I realize this is kind of convoluted, especially when there are multiple notability guidelines -- WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR in this case (at least). The standards have built up over time for good reasons.
 * In summary if you look at the current 28 sources for the article, most of them are writings by the author himself, so this doesn't help at all with independent demonstrations of notability. Source #1 is pretty good because it's specifically about the author and his research. The two in the criticism section are OK too. If two or three more like that could be found, it would help in the deletion debate. - Brianhe (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

COIN
I'm back, and stumbled across another paid COI venture too soon for my liking. Posted at WP:COIN, would like your input on it. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

very sorry
I'm extremely sorry that I seem to have ruined your SPI request by continuing the discussion there; I didn't foresee what the consequences would be, and I didn't do as good a job extricating myself from that long discussion with CF and CS as I should have. We seem to be a bit trapped, since the site administrator says they won't look at it as long as the page is too long, but we're also not allowed to shorten it. How do people usually proceed in this situation? Is there anything I can do to help? I hate to think we've hit a dead end here in pursuing FP1 after all this work of looking into their puppets. Again, my sincere apologies. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be too hard on yourself. Learning the ropes with noticeboards is something everybody has to do once. We'll see what happens with my suggestion to collapse the discussion of extraneous editors. If this is not accepted the SPI will likely be closed w/o action. If they continue socking, a new SPI can be opened later. - Brianhe (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like it worked! Bravo (or brava). - Brianhe (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: Wikipedia Requests. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying,  , or  , and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia Requests and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon


 * The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
 * The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

PROD
I have removed the prod tag from, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

''Hello Brianhe, Just to let you know, I removed the {{prod} tag you placed here. Reason - article currently in my sandbox, redrafting, additional sources etc. Would that be fine to wait till I finish those edits and you have a relook ? Happy Sunday. Cheers AM (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)''

cpgrafix
Reg this, I'm sure that this one was different from the Bangalorean. I know I've come across it, perhaps I've just deleted most of the spam from there. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I was looking at Sockpuppet investigations/Kazmandu2/Archive during my check on the latest COIN discussion I started (Buhram), can you see any similarities? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not specifically but tons of indicators that they are middling sophisticated paid editors. The account is obviously connected, co-editing an article in the draft namespace. Username selected with feminine names to deter hostile reaction. Both editors make fairly sophisticated citation edits, yet with Visual Editor. Despite the ability to create a new, referenced article in one edit, they make rookie mistakes like circular citations, mixing up article namespace with Wikipedia namespace , and believing  notability requirements pertain to Commons images . For both accounts there is a similar mix of sophistication and naivete (including clear grammatical and language errors typical of a common non-English native language) that suggests they are working under direction of yet a third player, a pattern I have my thoughts about. – Brianhe (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Meant to include this earlier but slipped, the connection to that SPI is . I'll go for an SPI but I'm unsure if it should be a new one or the above one. Maybe has an opinion on that? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that. My guess, somebody hired a new team to do the ayurvedic related article. Three months is too long for one group to stick around and return to a draft on something as penny-ante as this. The smaller guys are hit and run, get paid, move on. For larger companies that basically have Wikiwashing teams on retainer, it would be possible. Brianhe (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I think that it's related in some way, but I don't necessarily think that it's the same group and I agree with Brianhe that it's likely a new group of paid editors. It looks like has been editing for a long time and has been repeatedly warned that he needs to disclose his COI, so I've blocked him for that and other issues. I also note that there's a third account ,, that edited the AfD for one of Buhram's artices back in March. I'd endorse an SPI in this situation, but I think that I'd recommend starting it under a new name, as I don't think that they are the Rockstar Marketing people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm currently writing the SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's now open at Sockpuppet investigations/Buhram. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See what I wasted my time on now -- Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy. I'm sure I missed something because before filling the SPI I thought I had another couple of connections. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like the accounts at Buhram are unrelated. Kind of odd, so maybe they hired people from different areas? One (Buhram) is definitely paid and the others are suspicious, and the connection just seems to be too strong to be random. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out this job description. It was posted 10 months ago. This is what convinced me that the user has not retired. I'm going to have a look again and list any suspicious accounts at the SPI page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I dropped your link at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190. I'll wait for the SPI results to see what action(s) should be taken. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
The code you gave me worked for the pipes in the URL, thank you! The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

To my talkpage stalkers
To my talkpage stalkers: I just made a rather impassioned keep !vote at Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard. If I went over the line feel free to let me know. I'm finding Wikipedia's tolerance for marginal sportspeople and CEO articles, and apparent antipathy to a scientist who discovered several planets, to be hard to swallow at the moment. – Brianhe (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate but our SNG for academics is a higher bar than it is for actors, bureaucrats, sportspeople, models, pornstars and so on. That is to be expected in a crowd sourced blog like project. That said, I don't think lowering the bar for academics is the right way to go as that part of the project has set reasonable standards. It's the rest of the 'pedia that needs fixing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Spiff, with respect I don't think that is correct. WP:ACADEMIC states that it is an alternative to WP:GNG, not a higher bar but a second bar. "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria..." (emphasis mine). - Brianhe (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But there's another aspect to it, a lot of such coverage is "space filling", especially in the more "public facing" fields. It's just that our academics WP folks tend to follow their strict criteria. Taken to an extreme example, this sort of coverage results in something like this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (2016)
— Maile (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Belstaff
Hi Brianhe, this is SpiritedMichelle. You undid my edit describing Belstaff as a high-end brand, saying that my edit was not neutral. Belstaff products retail for several hundred dollars each. What other word or words would you use instead to describe Belstaff? SpiritedMichelle (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest including the price as an objective fact, if it is supportable and well-referenced under the criteria laid out at WP:NOPRICES. Simply calling it "high-end" is subjective and non-neutral. - Brianhe (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Rigorous and objective ways to define COI
Thank you for the invitation to come here and discuss the question. I hope it is OK that I created a new section. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this here from WP:COIN. Not everyone who sees this will be familiar with the prior conversation. Maybe you should state what you see as the problem, and what we can do about it? - Brianhe (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Background and disclosure
The present discussion stems from a discussion on WP:COIN relating to an allegation of COI about myself, Gabor Lukacs, being an air passenger rights advocate. It was alleged that I have a COI with respect to airlines and the Canadian Transportation Agency. The present discussion is motivated by the following comment of Roxy: "I think I understand the difficulty here Gabor. You are conflating your understanding of Conflict of Interest in the real world with WP:COI in wikipedia. They are not the same, and you have one in wikipedia"
 * A couple of points. Firstly, thank you Gabor for quoting me in full. I would have been tempted to ignore the last phrase, and for the purposes of this discussion, for now, I think we should. Secondly, it's late, and I'm tired and emotional, and will return with fresh eyes and a clear head tomorrow. OK? -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement of the issue
In the "real world" (RW), COI is usually defined when a person has a stake (in the sense of gaining or losing something, typically financially) in an issue. Understandably, this definition needs to be adapted to the virtual world of Wikipedia. So, the questions to be resolved are:
 * Is it possible to define COI for the purposes of Wikipedia in a coherent and consistent manner?
 * Should we err on the side of an overly broad or an overly narrow definition?

Gabor Lukacs (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there something missing or incorrect in the definitions WP:APPARENTCOI, WP:POTENTIALCOI and WP:ACTUALCOI? These seem to me to have equal applicability online or not. The primary difference about WP is that we can be as anonymous as we want; some people are fully so, some less so, and some go by their real name. So we don't have full information about their status vis-a-vis COI. Therefore sometimes we have to ask the editor what their status is, or to draw inferences if they are uncooperative. But that doesn't change the conditions under which COI apply, only our determination of whether they apply. Right so far? Or do you disagree with this?
 * (continuing) In a meta sense, there is a point of diminishing returns for rigorous definitions of most rules on Wikipedia due to two factors. One, simply because WP:IAR exists. Any rule, even if perfectly defined and rigorous, can simply be tossed aside if convenient and for the good of the project. Two, there is no final judge or even panel of judges; everything ultimately depends on consensus and consensual willingness to follow the rules. Even our ultimate sanction, essentially banishment via a siteban, is difficult or impossible to enforce (see WP:LTA if you don't understand this). So it is in our collective best interest to develop simple, flexible, easy-to-understand rules that most people are willing to abide by, even if that means a certain lack of rigor in the rules. I've actually thought about drafting up a flowchart for the COIN procedures but have held off on this for these reasons, among others: by doing so we'd tie our own hands for exceptional cases, and give wiggle room for people who want to game the system.
 * I'll wait for reactions to what I've said here before proceeding further. Brianhe (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that COI does not prevent a person from editing Wikipedia articles, it only asks for transparency and peer review of edits, it seems to me that precise definition is unnecessary and might even make the requirements even more onerous. Essentially we ask people with a COI to self-identify, and COI does not prevent you from editing. No one is blocked for COI editing (although they may be blocked for promotional editing). So COI is informative, with only minor consequences. And it has wiggle room, albeit based on a reading and understanding of the various documents and certain application of common sense. Now, the fact is that COI and promotional editing often coincide, and promotional editing is an actual offense that can lead to being blocked. But we need to keep those separate to the extent that we can. It seems unnecessary to me to have a lengthy discussion about well-managed COI. And in the current case, the main issue seems to me to be non-neutral editing, and a violation of BLP. Those should be the interesting areas of discussion. LaMona (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Meta discussion
This is an open question for people following this conversation. I think I know the answers but want to see if there's consensus on this. - Brianhe (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Where do we decide that COI is a factor in looking at any editing?
 * 2) Where do we develop COI guidelines that guide/control editing?
 * 3) Where do we discuss what guidelines apply to a particular case?
 * 4) Where do we discuss what actions to take when an editor is not in-bounds wrt the guidelines?
 * Brianhe, by "where" do you mean what pages? What interest groups? I'm unclear why you see the "where" question as a starting point. Thanks, LaMona (talk)
 * I intentionally left it open-ended. "Where" was a shorthand for "by what process" which could include both interest groups and noticeboards, if it is in fact developed in a noticeboard. But it might also be a diffuse process of consensus and practice that has no specific locality. - Brianhe (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride, Seattle
Hey, Brian. I was wondering if you might be willing to help me out with a pet project of mine: Wiki Loves Pride. The goal of the campaign is to document LGBT culture and history by photographing pride events, and creating/improving LGBT-related Wikipedia articles.

Here is a link to the page I made for Portland. Would you consider making a similar page for Seattle? I know you may not be interested or available to take pictures, but I was hoping you might be willing to get the ball rolling on an article called LGBT culture in Seattle. You can look at LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon for a similar list/article. There are better lists/articles for other cities, too, as evidenced in appropriate categories and navigation boxes.

No pressure, only if you are interested. My hope is that having a simple page dedicated to Wiki Loves Pride in Seattle may convince someone else to volunteer and go photograph the pride festivities there. Keep up the great work with the many drafts you've been creating lately! Talk soon, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I should start tonight because Memorial Day weekend could mean Wikipedia is competing for my time. Brianhe (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks so much! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created a WLP page for Seattle to display some of the articles being created/improved and ask if anyone is willing to go take some pictures. Thanks again for your support and constructive edits! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did this today for the project: Draft:Cherdonna Shinatra. – Brianhe (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up and support! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

African Jesuit AIDS Network (AJAN)
After adding several independent references, I removed the prod tag from African Jesuit AIDS Network which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!Jzsj (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a sound sample
Hello, I wanted to upload a sound sample of "Roke Na Roku" form the film Phobia (2016 film). Can you help me how I can upload a sound sample on Wikipedia? It should be like File:Gubbare.ogg. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 07:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think it meets the WP:NFC guideline for audio clips? If so you should be able to upload the file (to ENWP, not Commons) same as an image, I think. Haven't had an opportunity to upload audio before, myself. – Brianhe (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! By the way, what is ENWP? Currently, I have a 22 second .ogg sound sample of the audio recording. Mr. Smart ℒION  ⋠☎️✍⋡ 07:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ENWP is short for English Wikipedia, where we are now. There are other Wikipedias for other languages. As far as I know they have the same fair-use guidelines based on US law where all the servers reside. However I hedged my bets because they can adopt more strict guidelines. - Brianhe (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fyi
Just an FYI!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK
Is for pages coated in blue or links to humans and USA. Where links are helpful, if your common sense can't figure it out, WP:IAR and the other editors correcting your mistakes should point the way forward. It's great that you're here; kindly do something useful instead of making pages less helpful to their readers. — Llywelyn II   01:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Danell Lynn
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cow tipping
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Road Runners Motorcycle Club for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Road Runners Motorcycle Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Road Runners Motorcycle Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

David Gaither (artist)
Hi, Brianhe, I've restored the copyright violation template you placed at this article; it looks as if a second registered account may have a COI issue. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:61EB:D0DA:42E7:44BA (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

drop down list...
I've formatted that list but...as it's so long, I wanted to change it into drop down list - however, I have no idea how to do that...do you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the MediaWiki software supports dropdown lists. Sortable lists, yes. You can check at Help:Tables or ask at meta or perhaps mediawiki.org. - Brianhe (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Help:Tables gave me all I needed, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Laurie Wolf
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC
Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder - the way to apply for an ip block exemption due to a rangeblock is via UTRS. You will need to submit it from the location that is blocked, if you wish to obtain IPBE. I won't decline this one - but wanted to make sure you have this information. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, UTRS kept kicking back my request saying I wasn't blocked! I think that I'm going through a weird proxy. - Brianhe (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Stuart Anderson (restaurateur)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Romerson
Would you mind reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Romerson again?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging your request. The indicated action (checking all online references) will be rather time consuming and I'm sorting my weekend plans now. This may not happen right away. - Brianhe (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping
This RfC may be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Case/lang/veirs
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger redraft
Hi Brianhe, I've had one or two discussions on the talk page of Bell Pottinger over the last year or so. The whole article is quite sprawling and there are quite a few things out of date. As I've posted on the talk page, I've prepared a shorter redraft (see here), which updates a few things and which I hope is an appropriate length and appropriately balanced. Would you mind taking a look when you have a moment? Note my COI - I work for Bell Pottinger. Many thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a longstanding personal policy of not assisting paid editors, thanks for asking. My position began with thinking on undisclosed paid editors but I'm applying it across the board pending more uniformity/coherence on our community policies regarding editing, disclosure, and procedures and consequences around non-compliance with ToS and guidelines. - Brianhe (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. Can you think of anyone who might have a look? Jthomlinson1 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is, even stopping to compose this reply is taking away from time I could be spending on other topics that are under-represented on Wikipedia, let alone the other editors who you are asking me to involve. Did you read my essay? I take WP:Systemic bias here very seriously. - Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I did – some very interesting stats and I think we all know there's clearly some way to go before Wikipedia's the sum of all human knowledge! Thanks again. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Brian, 25 DYKs is no mean feat

 * Hey Victuallers! I never got my 50 DYK medal! LOL!  (But seriously, I didn't...)  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  20:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove my link in Racetrack Memories page ?
I wonder why you undid my addition ? Do you think it is useless ? Do you have deep information about this topic ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGUWMT (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some implicit assumptions in your question that you will find to be invalid at Wikipedia. All editors here are in equal standing regarding edits, regardless of their personal expertise. The burden to justify an addition is generally on the editor adding new material. You are advised to familiarize yourself with WP:EXPERT, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR before proceeding down a path which does not look comfortable for you. - Brianhe (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

But why you consider this external source unimportant ?! AGUWMT (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ducati ST series - merger.
Now that Ducati ST series is well established, perhaps it is time that the proposed merger with the ST2, ST3 & ST4 pages should proceed. I would do it, but I don't know how to mergers! Could you please assist (or else give me some tips)? Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please ignore - now done! Arrivisto (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hidden notice on outlines
That's just a standard notice at the top of outlines, to let editors know what they are, to alleviate confusion. Not all editors are familiar with outlines. It also lets them know how many outlines there are, and directs them to the entire set at Portal:Contents/Outlines, so they can see the scope of the operation.

Note that there is an effort underway to improve all outlines, according to the established standard, and create new ones, but it has nothing to do with that notice.

Motorcycles is one of the best outlines. It's missing some annotations, but nothing to be worried about.

If you'd like to see what's going on with outlines, see Community portal. And check out the draft namespace, starting at "Outline of".

Cheers, The Transhumanist 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Who's this?
. I remember there was a group of socks a while back creating articles at random pages and then moving them to new titles to avoid NPP but I can't remember who... SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah no worries in fact. That diff won't work anymore but it looks like Sockpuppet_investigations/Highstakes00/Archive. SmartSE (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete
If you create wrong page, please ask for speedy delete rather than blanking.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Somebody else made it a circular redirect, so I fixed it. - Brianhe (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Relative wealth, paid editing
You that paid editors using Fiverr and such can "become relatively wealthy" by circumventing our ToS and working through socks, etc. I think this is a valid point and made me consider something I have been pondering lately. By the standards of many North Americans, working through Fiverr is not really lucrative and I think many Wikipedians see this as a low-grade threat because they would not do it for that level of compensation. However for many people in the world, it is indeed as you say relatively well compensated. So as more of the world acquires access to the Internet, higher levels of English education, and tools such as Fiverr that serve as conduits to wealthy individuals or organizations in the Global North, the impact on this project becomes greater. Hence the recent proliferation of COIN/SPI investigations pointing towards actors in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uganda, Nigeria, the Phillipines, etc. (Interestingly, the Indian SPIs are often relatively locally-oriented, that is, Indian actors for Indian subjects, most significantly companies and film. Maybe this reflects the greater industrialization and locally available wealth of India?)

What this means for the long-term health of ENWP and for the people attracted to the business of undeclared paid editing, I don't know yet. Talking to recently made me consider this issue more broadly; maybe there is an ethical opportunity for each side that hasn't been sussed out yet. - Brianhe (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am seeing a lot of Pakistani and Indian paid editors working on accounts for Western PR firms through Fiverr. It gives relatively wealthy companies an easy and inexpensive method to alter Wikipedia's content to their clients wishes.
 * This is one of the greater threats to the neutrality of Wikipedia. Volunteers will eventually be unable to keep up. We may unfortunately eventually fill up with paid spam similar to Google Knol. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just something to check on
A sock from this paid COI ring that I blocked has just submitted an unblock request after over a year (last SPI is also over a year old). I'm guessing the ring may be active again, so you or someone else may want to take a look for new activity. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The very first thing I looked at was Tickmill LTD (User talk:Meeli436) and whaddya know: Tickmill was created over the summer. Some kind of bad joke about ticks comes to mind, but I restrain myself. Anyway, it's a forex trading company, we have been dealing with some of that at COIN lately, I wonder if it is coincidence. - Brianhe (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Awdko00 is the sock with the open unblock request. If we can get a few more edits from that sock then an SPI may be possible. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out and anybody else interesting at WP:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/marketersmedia.com. Brianhe (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * last edited within 90 days so a CU is possible. This was clearly not a first edit. I'm uncertain what the situation is regarding requesting CU when we don't know who the other socks might be. Might be able to comment on whether this meets #3 or #4 of CheckUser? SmartSE (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this should be checked against Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary where I'm trying to get to make another edit or two after the unblock request. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have little new to say about Awdko00. The unblock request is really compelling:  “I am not a crook”.  The technical connection between him and TC was always tenuous.  He’s still editing from the same location, which is not the usual location of TC.
 * Smehh and TickmillEsp are to each other.  The connection between Smehh and TC is also not great. Smehh is  to Meeli436, an account I believe I found to be ❌ to TC last year. I’d block Smehh, though, based on the technical evidence connecting it to TickmillEsp and the behavioral evidence, regardless of whether there’s any connection to TC.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, I wasn't entirely sure if I should have left it or not. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a huge difference right now but if the concerning behavior comes up again, the information will be there to facilitate a better response. - Brianhe (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Back
Finally digging out after the road trip. Want to pick a new article to work on? Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely maybe. I'm involved with a UW class as a wiki ambassador at the moment and am not sure how much time it will end up taking. Let's stay in touch... - Brianhe (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in Draft:Hannah Zeitlhofer? I forget who brought this person to my attention, but she might have been mentioned in your presentation at the WikiConferene. - Brianhe (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm interested. I see that the photo also has Elisabeth Gürtler in it. The title "rider" is a very specific one, representing the "graduate", not the apprentice level... We may want to do some updates on Spanish Riding School as well (actually, see also the user page for User:Conversano Isabella, he's not on en wiki much, but he's around.) Montanabw (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Brianhe. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I got your message
Hello. I got your message. Sorry if you're not happy with my changes. Please know I fought to keep that page. I was trying to help, please know that. And I did explain in great detail my changes on that talk page, but after you reverted my change I deleted that message. Perhaps I was too bold with this. Nobody else had jumped on the needed improvements, and since I'd chirped so much to keep it I felt obligated to help. All that aside, please consider your reversion, it has degraded the work terribly. I implore you to reconsider, or produce something better yourself. Your reversion is no where near the improvement I'd made, I'm quite confident. Anyway, good luck with it, I'm going to step back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved following conversation to Talk:Actifio - Brianhe (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

50,000 Challenge
Thanks for helping with the talk page banner. I'm looking forward to tagging new/expanded articles and adding check marks to the challenge's main page, and I'd certainly love your help when you have the time and interest. I wish there the WPUS 'article alerts' identified new articles... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'm looking forward to it. By the way Draft:Kerry Skarbakka has possibilities. - Brianhe (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fearsome critters
Template:Fearsome critters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tim Holmes
Hi Brian. I noticed you had cleaned up a bit of the self-promotional dross on this article. I've completely re-written and re-referenced it and left a stern note at Talk:Tim Holmes. Hopefully the miscreant(s) will take notice, but would you mind putting this on your watchlist? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for both the cleanup and this note. - Brianhe (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Image Sizing for Suzuki GSX-R1000
Hey Brianhe! Is there any way to appropriately resize the image for the page Suzuki GSX-R1000, as per the motorcycle infobox (specifically the photo of the 2001 K1), or at least increase the length of the lead material? The page looks a bit odd as it currently stands, because the lead in text is so short. I did a preview with resizing, which definitely looks better, but I'm not sure how desirable it would be to decrease the image size, just to get an aesthetically pleasing effect. Larger is definitely better and more encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the only other way I can see to fix it would be to pull in material from the body and incorporate it into the lead. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's impossible for you to know what this page will look like on everyone else's screen. If you hard-coded it to be perfect on your screen, it could look like anything on a much smaller or much larger resolution. Not to mention other browswer's font sizes. Set the image widths to "thumb" and the lead image to "thumb|upright=1.35". Portrait images should be "thumb|upright". A few very tall or narrow images might get different values, upright 0.8 or 1.4 maybe. Beyond that, if it doesn't look good to you, go to Special:Preferences and change your default thumbnail size to whatever width that works for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything technical to add to what Dennis said. It's important to remember that less than half of Wikipedia readers use desktop PCs (mobile now dominates), so any attempt to tweak pixel parameters to force image sizes to look right is not likely to work. The automagic incorporated in the thumbnail image code is pretty good at handling reader device diversity. Brianhe (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh
Per your recent edits, you guys will probably like this article,. Montanabw (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussing streamlining US cannabis articles
Your comments appreciated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your input requested on Washington state cannabis article
Please see here: Talk:Washington_Initiative_502

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Best way to cover DC cannabis topic? Your input requested
Please see here: Talk:Initiative_71

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Improving chart at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction
This article is the most-viewed page for cannabis issues in the US (~1,500 views/day). I think we can streamline it to make it less clunky and more intuitive for readers, especially now that we have state-specific articles for all US states. Your feedback is invited: Talk:Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Rocket Internet
Good stuff! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. If you are not familiar with the rather sordid history of the article, see COIN archive 89 and archive 92. It has been a real crud magnet. - Brianhe (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware, thanks for the heads up. I happened to come across it after editing on Web Summit, where I saw some names of editors I had not seen before and decided to look at the areas they edit. I have managed to get about 6 socks so far each type I see a tell-tale pattern. While looking at edit histories, I saw this Maxb2011, which immediately looked suspicious. I have contacted an admin on the German Wikipedia, which I believe is where he started; still need to look at what he has done in the French. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

COI By User:FactChecker212
Hi Branhe, User:FactChecker212's sole contributions appear to be to the page Julie Menin. User has a history of edit warring and copyright violation as well. Julie Menin page is currently on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SPAs are often, but not always, COI contributors. I don't immediately see anything that calls out for action in this case. Am I missing something? - Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It reads much like a resume ("She helped small businesses access grants, insurance, and other monetary aid; grew the organization to 30,000 members; and created a variety of programs, including the Retail Attraction Program, which helped more than 600 small businesses") and the article itself is essentially an orphan other than her internal links from her relatives (husband, cousin, etc). FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hi I got your massage Why did you massage me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby232332 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the request to use edit summaries? Well, because I wish you would use edit summaries. And sign talkpage comments too, I guess. - Brianhe (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Another fun article
Don't know about you, but this isn't just a Canadian thing, and a potentially fun article: Pancake_breakfast. Montanabw (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, we have those in the PNW. Example, this state park fundraiser . And Swedish pancakes here and full newspaper coverage. We're not sure if someone does it for free though. - Brianhe (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just remembered, this is usually called a "pancake feed" isn't it? Maybe regional, I don't know. Lots of google hits, here is a typical one from Nebraska.
 * Applefest
 * West Fargo, North Dakota
 * Seattle to Portland Bicycle Classic
 * Articles with phrase "pancake feed" listed above. - Brianhe (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just added a couple of links to Scandinavian pancake breakfasts above. This might be a good sub-topic for the article. Apparently it's kind of a big deal in certain PNW communities (we have neighborhoods like Ballard and cities like Poulsbo with a high concentration of Swedes, Norwegians and such). - Brianhe (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently Abilene, Kansas has had an annual fly-in and free pancake feed for about a quarter century . Brianhe (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where I live, they are a staple of small churches -- a reward for sitting through the sermon! (and yes, I think there probably is a correlation to Scandanavian roots... Uff da!)  Montanabw (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet
I had gone to the Michael Flynn article and found that citation which had been there for over four months. I only checked to see if the URL was still viable. I've seen Yahoo cited regularly in WP articles. Certainly the Annenberg Center is vastly superior as a source. I would not normally use Yahoo as a source, though they do exercise editorial control, but I wasn't writing a dissertation, merely checking existing content to make sure it was not a dead URL and that the source contained the relevant info. I don't know what you're accusing me of, since "refactoring" doesn't seems to apply remotely to anything I did. I know about as much about computer code as I know about Tungusic. I provided a RSS for Palin's AGW denialism but an IP editor removed it: Global warming denialist.Palin: Global Warming Just "Snake Oil", CBS News, February 9, 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2016. It does however, seem germane to note that a prospective Energy Secretary takes that position. Her scientific credentials also include her believing that the world is less than 7,000 years old and men literally walked with dinosaurs, though those notions are substantially less relevant to the position. Lastly, I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and the only other editor that has ever once taken issue with my USER name was tossed for sockpuppetry years ago. You have far more experience with Wikipedia than I. You don't have to mention my USER name to imply that by characterizing it as "provocative," that I'm not editing in Good Faith. I would think that removal of your comment and an apology by you would be in order. Activist (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't examined enough of your editing to say whether or not it is in good faith, I assume it is. However, I'm surprised that you essentially deny that your chosen username is designed to be provocative, especially in the context of editing political articles. Your editor summary says your chosen top articles include others, like Alaska political corruption probe, Private prison, and Muckraker. You can see how another GF editor would get the idea that you are, well, an activist, rather than a neutral editor. So I'll pass on your offer to make any apologies. - Brianhe (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw your response, and that although you wrote about me, you hadn't pinged me, but instead questioned the motivations for my editing. I attended the Wikipedia conference in San Diego last month. I consider myself a Wikipedia "activist." I don't think that's a pejorative or a disqualification. That was the USER name I chose over a decade ago, truthfully without thinking much about it. It doesn't mean that I am not objective nor neutral. I've made almost 5,000 edits to over 1,000 articles. I have considerable knowledge about many fields including criminal justice, and have made edits in many of them. That hardly means that I am subjective. The last edits I made to the Trump Cabinet page, before seeing your comments and leaving a note on your page, were to the vague entries for Kelly Ayotte, which needed improving, and to John Mica's. I thought about enumerating and including the number of terms that each has served, one and 12 respectively, but expected that some might find that excessive, so kept it short. When I went to Mica's article, to add a brief but objective synopsis of his background, I noted that he has chaired the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, and thought mention of that experience would be helpful to Wikipedia readers. However, I discovered that his article contained a number of long-standing errors, most particularly that he had been elected from Florida's 6th C.D., after initially being elected in the 7th District in 1992. I researched that, in the event that he had found himself temporarily in that adjacent district as a result of redistricting, and that then he might have returned to C.D. #7. To do so I had to start by going all the way back to his predecessor's article, who held the seat in the '70s and '80s, and then forward each year for a verification. I found and corrected two erroneous URLs in his article, that showed him as supposedly being in C.D. 6, and there were no results for the next election in 2014. So I researched that election also, both within and without Wikipedia, found an appropriate cite, and included that citation and added text into his article. I don't have much time to spare, so it's a bit of a burden. You are, I am sure, aware how time consuming researching such corrections can be, but I took the time to do it. It seems though, as you are inferring, that I would have had a political motive for so doing, rather than being propelled by any devotion to correcting misinformation. I have left the summaries of my edits on Wikipedia, because I don't care who looks at them. So then, I looked at yours, and found you, on the other hand it seems, have scrubbed your history so it is not accessible to other readers. So, using the criteria you have put forth, should anyone be suspicious of your objectivity because of your hiding your history? Should any editors jump to any conclusions? I feel that you've cast aspersions on my editing, and are unwilling to remove them when asked, a fairly simple request, I feel. But instead you seem to be rationalizing your behavior and doubling down on it. I'm truly sorry to see that. Activist (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * it is customary to watch another user's talkpage if you expect to participate in a discussion there, but I am pinging you now as a courtesy. Sorry if we got off to a bad start, none of my comments have been meant to disparage you or your contributions. I think the original thing I said which you may have construed as criticism had to do with "refactoring". Let me explain. This series of edits which you made moved citations from one column to another, and made it look as if some facts in the second column were supported by the citation in at least one case that I corrected. I'm assuming this was unintended and did not mean to say otherwise. It looks like we are both committed to the same thing, accuracy in articles, and if you like, I will repeat what I said above at the article's talkpage and we can both move on. - Brianhe (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks much for the explanation. It's appreciated. I had moved the citations from being in the name or photo cells because they obviously referred to the texts in the last of the adjacent cells and I was making an effort at uniformity. Someone had removed the text from a Palin entry because they said it was unsupported, even though that editor would have seen the corpus of the citation they were claiming didn't exist. The citations in the article grew organically and rapidly, I'm guessing, which can always create a problem in any article, especially when they get separated from the original text which they'd modified. (I just did extensive revisions of the James Joseph Richardson article, which was so messy it was scary, and moved citations from mid-sentence to the ends of sentences in another article.) So I didn't do any code changes ("refactored"), which I wouldn't know how to do in any case, just moved the cites so that a reader could pull them up immediately and so any text wouldn't be removed as being supposedly unsupported. I must confess that I thought you were just being pissy and almost ragged on you for something inconsequential, what I thought was your posting of the old photo of an Iñupiat woman, without realizing that it was automatically posted on your USER page. Northern and Northwestern indigenous Alaskans refer to themselves that way, rather than as Inuit, as the photo was titled. Greenlandic Inuit don't have problems with the name, though most prefer the name Kalaallit, themselves, I think (Western Greenlandic people). Anyhow, I'm pleased that it was sorted out. If you want to add any very brief text to clear up the issue on the cabinet article's TALK page, I'd appreciate it. Feel free to remove these ramblings. Thanks again. Activist (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear we don't have a problem going forward, it's always my aim to settle misunderstandings without drama. So anyway I'm not sure what the Inuit thing is about, it was probably a picture posted automatically by the WP:Picture of the Day script which I had no editorial control over and I don't even remember that particular image. I hope that this reply on the cabinet talkpage is sufficient to put this issue to bed. - Brianhe (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate very much your taking care of that. I mentioned the picture of the Seward Peninsula Iñupiat woman only in jest. The pictures on your USER page automatically rotate daily, I expect. The photo's title had been changed to remove "(Iñupiat)" for some reason, probably by whomever selects the Daily photo, leaving only "Inuit." I figured it was probably 100 years or so old because she did not have chin tattoos, which were meant to signify pubescence, but which were abandoned mostly due to pressures applied by missionaries who began to arrive in the Northwest Arctic in the late 19th century. I think they're experiencing something of a renascence these days. Activist (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

sign comments or use edit summaries
Hi Brianhe I am not all that good at sign comments or use edit summaries if you can. can you please edit the Proposed cabinet of Donald Trump page. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby232332 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Hi Brianhe, I don't understand why you undid all of my revisions. I took out several inaccurate statements by OceanFlynn (#1-2) and other inaccurate statements that are out of context when compared to the article that was by ManilaTimes
 * Undid revisions on Jose Roberto Antonio page

1 - Jose Roberto Antonio is not a special envoy to the US by President Duterte, his dad is (Jose E.B. Antonio)

2 - the statement “He is a board director of Operation Smile Philippines which was unveiled in 2012 by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump” – that’s new and it sounds odd. The Trumps didn’t unveil Operation Smile Philippines.

3 - As for the part that says the article “characterized Antonio's personal spending on vanity projects and relatively modest philanthropic spending as indicative of inequality in the Philippines where the average family income in 2013 was $4,988” this is inaccurate if you read the original article by ManilaTimes and the use of the line “the average family income in 2013 was $4,988”. It seems to be a mishandling of the article. This is what the original line says in context: One could sense a slight hint of disgust over such display of wealth in the Vanity Fair article, pointing out that the $15 million cost of the Antonio’s house “is in somewhat stark contrast to the average annual Filipino-family income of $4,988.”

4 - I do not understand what the original poster of the above is trying to portray, if he wants to say that Jose Roberto Antonio spends more on himself unlike other tycoons who fund schools (as the article points out) then he should rephrase his statement and use the ManilaTimes article properly.

124.104.227.126 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just wanted to say thank you very much for your helpful comments, both at WP:COIN and at WT:Harassment, today. Much appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and thanks in return for the encouragement. - Brianhe (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Denny-Renton Clay and Coal Company
Hello! Your submission of Denny-Renton Clay and Coal Company at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Trump administration cabinet members has been nominated for discussion
Category:Trump administration cabinet members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Brianga (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

DYK for Hemp in Kentucky
Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

LTA investigation (minor details)
Hi. I looked at your page for the Brightify LTA investigation and noticed a couple of minor details. 1. Staples goes to the DAB page Staples rather than the company. This might be intentional, but since it's under retail stores, maybe you mean Staples Inc. 2. "Technical minutae" should be "technical minutiae." Good luck. I hope you can get it stopped. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for telling me about the mistakes, which I have corrected. Feel free to tell me if you see anything else or just want to discuss the case. - Brianhe (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Election maps
Hi Brianhe, I'm an avid Political editor here on Wikipedia, and I appreciate your input re the election maps in Washington. I think the idea for a cartogram is cool, but I find the pie chart to be very hard to understand, and while decrying the use of county results in a state, Dennis uses counties in his pie chart. County results are not inherently biased, and do not contradict WPOV. All major networks uses county result maps, and so do all secs of State. Thanks for your input and please let me know what you think about my argument! PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm
20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Not welcome
124.219.233.117 is not welcome to post to this talkpage. Stalkers please help by reverting his posts here. Brianhe (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Smartmatic COI
I was wondering if you could take a look at the Smartmatic article for potential COI edits. I had an initial proposal on the COI noticeboard, but it was overlooked, so check out the updated proposal. The editing on there has only gotten worse with another single-purpose user.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the editor doesn't respond to others (like your attempt to contact him) and persists, you can request immediate protection of the article. Especially if he is reverting you. WP:RPP is the place to request it.
 * I'll have a look at the contribs when I am able. - Brianhe (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for your time!-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 06:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so a lot of single-purpose users came out and started editing the article. Some have been warned before. Not trying to canvass but I would appreciate another pair of eyes or something. With this many users attempting to edit the article, it makes things even more suspicious.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 11:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll start an SPI. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Smmtt. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

sid miller photo (was re: bannon photo)
If you want to mess with improving the Sid Miller page, you might be able to just use his official State Of Texas portrait from 2014, which is © 2016 Texas Department of Agriculture. Problem being, obviously, figuring out whether stuff that is copyrighted by that state governmental department, is public domain or not. You might be able to get an answer by contacting the staffers via email at Customer.Relations_ATGLYPH_TexasAgriculture_SMALLCIRCLE_gov, or you might have to go through some REAL hoops and submit an official FOIA-equivalent request, which can also be done via email (or an online webform), but requires giving out your name/addr/email to get the data. There is a three-hundred-page user guide, and a public records hotline (+1.877.OPEN.TEX) if needed. Sigh.

It is unclear whether copyright law protects the material of the department of agriculture, SOME departments can use it e.g. department of motor vehicles to keep records from getting abused (they don't give out driver's license info to anybody that asks for it). Wikipedia also seems not to know the status of such works.  Harvard *implies* that there are few restrictions, but does not have much to say about how to utilize what is NOT restricted, or indeed, WHAT is not actually restricted.  Big pain, in other words, hence my shoving it off onto your plate  ;-)

Although it would not be as useful long-term, as figuring out the copyright-status of works by the various branches of the governmental departments of the state of Texas, for faster results to the current Sid Miller (politician) difficulty, you might also be able to get permission from his campaign-website to use their 2013 portrait, via emailing millerfortexas_ATGLYPH_gmail_SMALLCIRCLE_com for permission. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've fired off an inquiry to the address you provided at the end of your post. I didn't mention it's possible use but asked for its copyright status. Let's see what they say. - Brianhe (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ 06:36, 29 December 2016‎ Brianhe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,891 bytes) (+55)‎ . . (added image).   Sid Miller (politician), nice  :-)  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Denny-Renton Clay and Coal Company
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)