User talk:Bri/Archive 13

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

I need help
I have corrected and proven something with 2 sources and the one with the long name keeps nit picking it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello
I have disclosed my coi to everyone I have nothing to hide but there are major damaging errors that nobody care about

Including mention of Raphael recanati prison sentence as 8 years not 8 months suspensed this is personal and wrong

This damaging information was easily fixable if anybody would have bothered to read the original article no one did and it was there for years

I have a couple but I haven’t stopped anyone from making my work neutral it is all I have ever wanted  my delete of the whole page of 1983 Israel stock market crash full of inflammatory writing and some libel a article with no sources that was tagged as a problem since 09 was reversed every time I put something extremely minor my sources is triple by the same person who said this article is fine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Israel_bank_stock_crisis Flamingoflorida (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed all mention of the erroneous damaging information involving my family but the remainder is damaging and could be libel on others people Flamingoflorida (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cannabis in Alberta
I've finished off all of the other provinces/territories but I left Draft:Cannabis in Alberta since that's the one you've most worked on and I didn't want to poach your article, so I'll leave it for you to publish when you like. Thanks for setting up the list and drafts and whatnot, gave me impetus to get rolling! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for asking but to me a draft is there for anyone who has anything that improves the topic, so you are good to go ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration on library building
We discussed a collaboration for the branch library in which we held yesterday's CWUG meeting, and here is your opportunity: Draft:Seattle Public Library Capitol Hill Branch. Cheers and felicitations for the holidays ☆ Bri (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this. I contributed to List of libraries in Seattle years ago and wondered how I could ever do individual articles. Perhaps the time is ripe.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that we should rename the article so that the branch name comes first, in line with the styles used by other cities with individual branch articles (e.g. Los Angeles and Portland): Capitol Hill Branch Library, or if necessary Capitol Hill Branch Library (Seattle). I have a draft of a branch navbox at this sandbox I created a while ago.  Sounder Bruce  00:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I was eager to get started and didn't look for the precedents in existing articles. Bruce, maybe this is a good time to publish that navbox? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now up at Seattle Public Library.  Sounder Bruce  00:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also rewritten the lead and replaced the infobox, since other branch articles use the Building infobox (which allows for more information about the branch itself).  Sounder Bruce  01:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes there is another "Capitol Hill" library in the Multnomah County system not so far away (Portland) ... also in Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City, which is called Marmalade (don't ask why). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And speaking of libraries, many of the rural systems don't have articles yet. I'll be creating sourced stubs and longer articles where I can, as the state has some excellent resources.  Sounder Bruce  04:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved this draft to Capitol Hill Branch Library and started Draft:Beacon Hill Branch Library. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you weigh in at Talk:History_of_cannabis?
Should take you just a quick sec, would be appreciated, thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Belated note
Re: "Thanks for pointing this out and especially for proposing solutions. Do you mind if I link from Signpost coverage of the wishlist?" at what is now Village pump (proposals)/Archive 143 – certainly not, and I hope you weren't waiting for my reply! That archived quickly, and I'm still mulling over the responses, but I think it's enough to work with in sending something more polished to the Community Tech team that will hopefully affect how the poll is done this coming November–December. PS: If you want to keep track of stuff I write up like this, you can watchlist User:SMcCandlish/On the Radar, an infrequent newsletter (sometimes cites Signpost, though I mostly get stuff from elsewhere, like meta, and external publications), and User:SMcCandlish/Essays, in which I've started cataloging essays and proposals as I generate them. I'm a bit of an RfC factory, and realized I needed to use a list to keep track of them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Matt Tittle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Tittle 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/Matt Tittle 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. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, it's the best solution...
...But it's still sad to see you go, even if it's temporary. I actually went through this on my My Wikivoyage Account as I was struggling. Well, I wish you the best of luck! Zanygenius (talk · contribs) 05:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management


If you believe your account, User:Noraft is being sock-puppet-ed, I would recommend bringing it to the Village Pump, at least until User:Bri has came back, and they could propose an idea. Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Signpost
Am I also allowed to let you know my thoughts on the draft? :p Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me check with the editor-in-chief how wide he wants to handle this. He actually hasn't responded to my idea to ask the first two, yet (I hope I don't have to retract the idea). My idea was to invite just two opposing views from the workshop participants, to make it digestible and not a re-litigation of the case. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of writing anything for publication, just feedback on elements of the draft itself :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure I guess? It looks like the draft talkpage, where we would usually carry out a discussion, is discouraged in favor of the Signpost newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. Sorry if my feedback is unwelcome. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you followed the conversations elsewhere, but your contribution is welcome in the reader feedback ☆ Bri (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think copying the comments I made on the draft version makes it look sour and petty? Apart from the blurb, they still stand. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  23:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Either the publishing scripts did some weird stuff, or I'm just an idiot; I can't find the notes you left anymore. But I do remember they could have been read as either an attempt at justification or re-litigation and I don't think that's what you want. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 11 Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me.
 * Blurb "for concealed dealing with a PR firm" -- I changed this wording already (B)
 * I don't feel it is fair to mention the proposed Finding of Fact related to the checkuser review request without also mentioning its inclusion was solidly opposed and voted against by a majority of Arbitrators, especially when the current wording presents it as "equivalent" (without distinction) to FoF 2A which is mentioned right afterwards and which was approved by the commitee.
 * I guess you will want to respond to this in your comment. (B)
 * "Process vulnerabilities such as (...) sockpuppet investigations were concerns for some" -- wording doesn't make sense, SPI is not a "process vulnerability". Should either mention what the discussed vulnerabilities of SPI are (and link to their mention, as you've done with "corruption of AfC"), or since that was a very minority opinion opposed by most (including CUs and clerks), perhaps not mention it if it can't be both balanced and concise.
 * Saw your comment but left it in the interests of concision. It made sense to me and nobody has written me up for it so .... (B)
 * "It was left to an open RfC whether (...)" --I think you're missing a few words there....
 * I think that was fixed before publication. Not having looked for a week or so one or both may now be closed. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. Indeed I guess the only relevant comments are on (1) the weight given to the rejected CU-report FoF vs. accepted FoF2A and (2) SPI being called a "process vulnerability" (whatever that means...) without a citation nor it being framed as an opinion opposed by clerks/CUs. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Brainstormin'
I'm aware of the Harvard system. It (or similar) is what has always worked best for me. Our handicap is being an online cloud/crowd sourcing community. I know the problems, having worked in many collaborative virtual offices over the past 2 decades or more. The ideal situation after the initial brainstorming would be to gather the best ideas, then in a small team around a real life table, discuss the best of the best on the Harvard scheme. Then formulate a plan of action. This paid editing is the biggest challenge Wikipedia has yet to meet properly. Discussions have been going on for over 10 years, even meeting with some of the job agencies head on; it's very difficult to get people to give up on a financially lucrative activity, especially one that has little or no overheads. But nothing as yet has come of it all, they all say "Yes, yes" and go back to business as usual. It has to be addressed professionally even though we are all volunteers here. We need people from among our community who are experts in their real life fields and without the background noise of peanut munching. And that's why I'm not listing my real ideas on-Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We ought to rendezvous half way. Conference in Hawaii? Or maybe just Skype (Hangouts). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Respectfully?"
Thanks for your respect about telling my that my title and blurb was awful, but really, there is no respect due. It was an awful title and blurb. I never could, and perhaps never will be able to write those. Don't worry about telling me I'm awful. I still plan to leave The Signpost if someone competent comes to take my place. Until then, bad content is better than none. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly I just treated it as an erroneous cut-paste, sorry if I offended, it was not my intent. The publication needs everybody willing to pitch in. When I started it was just to get it of the ground after last year's long hiatus. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I came off too mean. What I meant was that you should not be worried about offending me about anything I do. Great work with the Arb Report by the way. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One Word Please
For The Signpost, can you please describe your Wikipedia experience in one word? Eddie891 Talk Work: 00:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can answer this one since starting right now I am a talk page stalker. Bri wants to describe his/her/neutral-pronoun experience as "Funky". My word is "awesomeness-riveting-rewarding-great-colaboration". Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really having a hard time coming up with one word. I considered barnstar to embody the spirit of collaboration and community, but I think just to be weird funky and all socks and sandals-y ( that is not me in the picture, but it is my Xbox avatar ), I'm gonna pick potlatch for the same reasons, plus the added halo of one of my favorite phenomena, the gift economy. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I can help
I saw your post here I would like to be pinged when you would like another opinion if you would like. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  10:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Barbara, I'll keep you in mind. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration DS motion enacted
Hi Bri,

I thought it might interest you, as the Signpost's arbitration report author, that ArbCom today enacted a fairly substantial change to the discretionary sanctions procedure, adding new requirements for administrators when imposing page-level restrictions.

Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kevin: I'm happy to share authorship credit for this, if you want it. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, thanks, but it's greatly appreciated! Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Press releases
Since UW station is at FAC right now, I'd rather use press releases that satisfy the "high quality" requirement for sources instead of web magazines like Dezeen. Mind if you let this one slip by?  Sounder Bruce  04:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops I saw we had an article for Dezeen and didn't notice it was a webzine. I'll self-revert and look for something better. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's Contract magazine; no WP article but it is a subscription, print magazine . ☆ Bri (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would rather keep the press release, since it has a lot more information about UW Station's merits.  Sounder Bruce  05:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Planet X637Z-43


The article Planet X637Z-43 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable event with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fleeting News of the weird items don't satisfy Notability (event) or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Deprodded with this comment: Hoaxes can be encyclopedic, we even have categories for them. Coverage is sustained as demonstrated by 2 years worth of sources 2015–2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Discussion Of Dada Kondke Trust Article Being Marked As The neutrality of this article is disputed
Hello,

This is jwalia. Recently you marked one of my article with neutrality tag. I am new to this tag of neutrality issue and would like you to explain how to get it sorted? It would be great on your side if you pls guide me with the same.

I have added details using newspapers citations and other online-offline sources. The topic of Land Mafia Grabbing The Trust Property was added as it was been flashed in the newspapers and e-newspapers. Also i felt that adding more details will make the article informative.

However, i would be glad if you pls help me in steps to be taken regarding the same. what changes/edits should i make? or should i just take initiative to improve the language in which it is written?Jwalia012 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Jwalia012


 * Hey,, no worries, we're dealing with it right now. As for Jwalia012, I have a message at their talk page. Hope your Monday is well.
 * Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 18:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll respond there, thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing disclosure
Hello Bri. I've just disclosed at my userpage that I've been paid to create Chris Kacher article. Could you please remove that UPE tag as irrelevant. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling me two things firat. First: why you did not reply at Sockpuppet investigations/Juko534. Second: Why you chose December 20, 2017 to, when Fisher Wallace Laboratories for example was created as far back as March 2015? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I count 17 articles created here but only two disclosures on your userpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure:) I normally reply when someone asks me something... No question - no reply... I also have no idea what is Juko534. Second: I think it was new moon, who told me to finally make this move:) your turn;) Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I just was not aware that I am obliged to disclose until Jytdog wrote me (or maybe until I got into COIN, don't remember exactly). --Pozytyv (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bri, I see that instead of doing what you have promised, you brought another sockpuppet investigation on me. Not nice. This doesn't add trust to the community.. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your insinuation that I'm not keeping promises is unwelcome. Keep in mind that volunteers don't work here for you. Please don't post here again. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI
Whereabouts is the SPI? I doubt Pozytyv is stupid enough to be all the users at !voting at Articles for deletion/Chris Kacher (2nd nomination) but I also doubt that they are all new, unconflicted editors. SmartSE (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SmartSE: It seemed prudent to ask here; has replied but it looks like there's no retained CU data. It will have to be determined on behavior alone.  ☆ Bri (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am torn on that one. All the other accounts that posted that link were CU confirmed. We have two instances of it with Pozytyv. At the same time, all the other accounts were throwaway accounts, which Pozytyv isn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Thanks for that. I guess it would need a new case then, but it may not be needed tbh. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

help
You left a message for me somewhere and I can't find it. It was about the next signpost. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Will re-ping from there... ☆ Bri (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

unwanted page move requested
Hi Bri! Some of us were talking through the new PBR tour name issue on the Built Ford Tough Series when an anonymous user kept making unsourced changes that changed the whole meaning of the article to be about the new tour name. So I requested page protection and got an admin involved for my trouble. They took over, putting full protection on the page (montanabw talked them down to semi-protection), decided the article needed its name changed and started a name change request-all before I could respond or put forth a case like you would in a resolution board. They also reverted my last edit on the Professional Bull Riders to that same probable troll's edit, so humiliating. montanabw reverted back to mine. She's a such a treasure. But anyway, can you look at the move request? Talk:Built Ford Tough Series If you don't agree, that's fine..really. I absolutely don't expect you to agree just because we are friends. I want what's best for the article. But it is telling that an IP was created who then posted in the discussion that I was deceiving editors. And yes, I was a bit brusque in the talk page sometimes. For over a week now, I've been dealing with an incredible amount of anonymous users for that area. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to have aroused attention of another admin, and could end up impinging on gender gap task force issues. I think it would be prudent for me to stand back for just a bit and see where that goes. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've seen this and some one was trying to blame montanabw for being part of my edit wars on the PBR article. I was trying to set them straight that I was solely responsible for and involved in them and I used the BFTS article to prove it. I didn't know any of them were admins. She was thankful. She's going to hat it today. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Your comments at WT:RFA
Hey Bri. I saw your comments at WT:RFA and wanted to take a moment to discuss a larger issue in general. I wrote a opinion piece about this subject here. That's a lot of reading. There are many ways to measure growth/decline of Wikipedia. Lots of people will quibble about whether it is in decline or not. But, here's the reality; everything ends. Wikipedia will end too. The struggle isn't to stop it from ending. The struggle is to make the date it ends as far into the future as possible. To that end, analysis needs to happen on how best to keep the lights on, as it were. A look at RFA by month should convince anyone that the heyday of RfA has long, long since passed. That's just one of many examples of processes that are dying or have already died. Another; the candidates running for ArbCom this year and last year numbered 12. The last five years before that averaged 19.8 candidates. That's nearly a 40% drop off in candidates. As the pool of available editors diminishes, so to do various processes begin to end.

The troubling part is the Wikimedia Foundation is continuing as before, believing that things will always be as they have been. They fail to recognize that all organizations have a life cycle, as do all products. It is grossly immature management on their part to fail to recognize this reality. Where we should be now is in a condition where we are past explosive growth and now have a way to maintain what we have in a way that furthers the project's goals. But, little exists in that regard. Instead, what we have is a haphazard array of processes that are, whether designed to or not, limiting the ability of new editors to contribute. Since there is no strategy governing the evolution of the project, there is chaos. The response to the chaos is to protect the project via demonizing the very thing that made the project possible; new editors.

So anyway, doing a piece on the decline of RfA seems to only be addressing a symptom. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm mulling over what you said. I'd encourage you to comment at The Signpost when it is published. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like News and Notes was dropped for this issue, but that's an opportunity too. Would you be interested in an op-ed page of your own to discuss these ideas? If so I will take it up with the editor-in-chief – I'm 100% for invited op-eds so far (out of one attempt) ☆ Bri (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouln't want to break your stellar record :) Actually, maybe. I haven't delved into research for the subject in quite some time and would need to do so in order to really do it right. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Craps
Hello Bri: I see you've required a source for a "general knowledge" bit of knowledge re "Craps," wherein I've offered the puzzlingly omitted nicknames for "street craps" called "rolling [the] bones." I'm not going to source it; anyone who's read crime novels featuring dice games knows that it's first, a slang entry; & second, common knowledge. Perhaps my PhD in AmLit with a focus on crime novels is not enough to bridge the gap in knowledge wherein you yourself haven't heard of the slang version—and if you're omitting it perhaps it will prevent my students from glomming Wikipedia entries without accrediting them in lists of works cited, so that's not all bad. Still, this doesn't strike me as an area of knowledge that can be sourced: for any reference after early c20 will be wrong, and any reference prior to it will be speculation. But thanks. You've given me one less reason to read wikipedia articles to gain actual knowledge, and one more reason to never try to add relevant knowledge to any entry whatsoever without kowtowing to mindless rules that in the instance cited are N/A. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtelkin (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody with a real PhD would balk at being asked to cite a source. They don't give PhDs to anyone who thinks citing sources is "kowtowing to mindless rules". Well, I suppose if your degree is from Trump University, maybe.Ask yourself this: What if some other anonymous guy changes your "rolling bones" to "rolling stones", and when you try to change it back, he says, "Oh, yeah, well I've got TWO PhDs in AmLit! And a Nobel prize in crime novels!" And then a third anonymous guy says no, it's "rolling scones" and swears he is Dashiell Hammett incarnate, risen from the dead? Where does it end? Is every edit going to be a cock measuring contest where anonymous guys try to out-boast each other's claims of worldly expertise? The only way to settle it is to ask editors to name a verifiable source, so that it is possible for others to go check out the same book from a library, or read the same magazine back issue, or (the easy ones) visit the same website. Then we can all agree regardless of whether we really do have a Nobel Prize in crime novels and two PhDs, or we're just Randy in Boise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much to add to what Dennis said. I thought at first you might be a new editor here, not be used to having edits challenged. But since you have been around for a bit I'm stumped why you seem unfamiliar with the necessity to not rely on personal observations.
 * Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Joe
re: Signpost about arbitration. I am determined to ignore ignore ignore both cases. Please check our my question to the arb candidates, and perhaps modify the scope (for both cases, it takes two to have an argument), and perhaps the header. I dislike "hostility", in general, and especially as a prejudice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy
Hi Bri,

I believe you've incorrectly reverted the change I made in article "Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission". Falcon Heavy isn't the most powerful rocket launched since Saturn-V; Al-Jazeera forgot at least about Energiya.

Please revert your change.

Thank you,

Avmich (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm now remembering I saw elsewhere that it is the most powerful currently in service. Feel free to make the change with proper refs. .. or I will in the next day or so. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It already mentions that FH is "twice as powerful as the next most powerful rocket in current operation.[3]". I'll just remove the claim I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmich (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

Ambiguities...
...create inconsistencies. Why are so many of WP PAGs seemingly riddled with ambiguity and capped off with WP:IAR? Classic example - the infobox wars. OMG, all the drama - simple solution for the sake of peace and consistency - RfC on VP policy to determine if an infobox should be required for consistency in our MOS - same as the lede, how images, tables, lists are to included, and so on. Atsme 📞📧 12:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think it reflects the politics of the wiki and sometimes the limits of patience in trying to craft consensus. We tend to be driven from one crisis to another and when things are "good enough" they are left that way.
 * In many ways this place is, unfortunately, a structure characterized by extreme conservatism and resistance to change. As you noticed this becomes a paradox of a rigid bureaucracy yet without complete rules or any real administrative review system. At the best of times it gives us individual freedom as long as we don't color outside the lines egregiously. At the worst, it is governed by personality and sniping.
 * Not just that but based on my observation of routine conduct at ANI, described by others as "the peanut gallery", I think some here actually enjoy the spectacle of non-cooperation and enjoy feeding the flames.
 * How to change the rules? Major new initiatives like WP:ACTRIAL are few and far between and characterized by much rancor. They must be shepherded by someone with not just a lot of chutzpah and vision but staying power against community inertia. How to change the culture is an even harder nut to crack. Getting the right people into leadership positions is part of it IMO. Then demanding leadership behavior.
 * WP:MEDRS is, I think, one of our huge successes and depends on some fairly rigorous standards and people willing to apply them. It is de facto driven by a committed core group. How this evolved and how to extend the concept to other areas might be a fruitful area of research. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Tether (cryptocurrency)
Bri,

Nice work cleaning up the tether article. One thing that you may have missed is that the company essentially committed suicide by promising an audit of its dollar holdings and then not producing one. See for a promise (under "auditors"). This should be the easiest audit in the world to do. Check the bank balance, check the token balance- for several days to make sure no funny business is going on, like short term loans.

The "information" produced by the auditing firm was definitely not an audit (near the top) "This information is ... solely for management's use". Note 2 says the whole exercise was worthless: The auditing firm "makes no representations about ... whether the funds are committed for purposes other than Tether token redemptions." i.e. they didn't check for repos (short term loans).

Reading accounting statements is difficult if you haven't had experience at it, but these words mean exactly what they say. My conclusion is that they can't prove that they have the dollars backing up the tokens. The company might as well be dead. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it badly needed a weeding. I assume it is on your watchlist now, as well as mine. Something tells me it's the tip of the iceberg for coin stuff. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You reviewed Chapstick lesbian?
I notice in the page logs that on "2017-09-20T20:02:49 Bri marked Chapstick lesbian as reviewed", but the article is still showing the "new unreviewed article" hatnote. Is that something that should now be removed, or does it need further review? -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't know why I didn't do that already. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11
Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Response
Just in response to your comment, I did some work for Eddie through a freelancing website and he asked if I could look through his wiki page and make some edits so I did and then he asked if I could do the same for his father. We don't have any sort of personal connection, and have only had contact because of a previous freelancing opportunity. Does this still count as a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflesandpancakes (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do, undoubtedly. Please reply at WP:COIN not here ☆ Bri (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Thank you for your message about disclosure for paid edits, I have updated my profile to reflect this. We look after all of Skinny's media, and any edits to Wikipedia are definitely not included with the scope of our work. We understand that Wikipedia is not, and should not be used for advertising. This said, our client asked why the page was deleted and I investigated into it on their behalf as they were concerned why it had been. It came to light that our clients' previous search agency (Central Station) paid Highbrows Engineering & Technologies to get these edits made, and our client was unaware of this activity that was being requested on their behalf. Both Skinny Mobile, myself and my employer are not interested in making edits, simply getting the page reactivated and we understand that should we have a suggestion, we can use the 'talk' function to make a suggestion. Can you please let me know if there are any other steps I can take in getting this page reactivated?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiaducker (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I'd rather see you volunteering on stuff that's more interesting to me than cleaning up after Highbrows' undeclared paid editing. If you want a list of suggestions then I'd be happy to provide from Category:Wikipedia red link lists. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Kakar sisters
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Kakar sisters. --আফতাব (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. We still have some more cleanup to do after, don't we? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mud Bay Indian Shaker Church has been accepted
 Mud Bay Indian Shaker Church, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Mud_Bay_Indian_Shaker_Church help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Craps Player Bets
This is a universal bet offered at nearly every casino in America. If you have any questions please ask me as I am an expert in this field we are all ten year plus editors. Valoem talk contrib 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And your source for that is? So far, the only thing you established is the "registered trademark" bit, which tells me it's a) non standard, b) possibly promotional and (given the length of the section) c) WP:UNDUE. And while were at it, why bring it up on an uninvolved users talk page? Kleuske (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edited Craps too. However, everyone who has been here a little while should know "I'm an expert so there's no need for consensus or reliable sources" goes counter to how this place works. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , this is a violation of WP:AGF, I am a ten year editor here is the source, your question suggesting I am making things up. Do not do that again here is the source. When you see an editor with my experience it proper to question me on my talk, not revert. . Valoem talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 21:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your experience doesn't mean diddly-squat, here. Apart from WP:BRD, you may want to catch up on WP:V (policy demanding proper sources) and WP:RS (describing how to establish reliability), too. I'm surprised I need to explain that. Kleuske (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blatant violation of AGF, please open an ANI if you wish to continue. Your comment is unacceptable. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Interview
Perhaps its time for an interview with multiple people on the inbox debate. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
...for finding the link to Greg Williams. For some reason that I don't remember I had problems with the link. I had his name in the byline but that and a link to his userpage is even better. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  04:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Petro gold for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Petro gold 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/Petro gold 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. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Query
Hi Bri, I saw you working on Signpost. Are you the right person to approach about an op-ed idea? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, or the Signpost story-idea submissions page; you can also email me if you'd prefer. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost
I have submitted an article for Signpost's next issue. I don't really know who is responsible for Signpost these days, but I thought you'd like to know and might like to copy edit it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

(bump) has Signpost actually given it's last croak? Will it ever be published again? What do  you  think are the reasons for  so little interest in  maintaining it these days? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw a comment on the publisher's talkpage that he might be ill. I hope not, but it's unusual not to hear from another editor for over a month. I feel like I kind of helped kick-start it last June (IIRC) but can't keep pushing on a rope. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually  replied to  you in  more detail on  user talk:Montanabw before I  saw your  reply  here. I think  there's now enough content to  get  the next  issue out  but  who  has the tools (and knowledge) to  do this? There must  be prior Signpost  editors who  can come in  and lend a hand or at least  tell  us  how to  do  it -  or have we been puting  all  our  eggs in  one basket? I've emailed the current  publisher. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we have both emailed him. I also contacted the prior E in C. Maybe has a suggestion?  ☆ Bri (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me. Much time has passed since I was deeply involved with the Signpost and I have likely forgotten some of the steps for publishing it correctly.  I still have the password for the publication tool from my Signpost days although the password may have been changed after I discontinued my regular involvement. I have plenty of unpaid responsibilities at the moment and I am avoiding taking on more big or regular projects unless they are paid. If a community consensus emerges that the current Editor-in- Chief is no longer doing the job and someone else should take over then I would be willing to disclose the password that I have for the publication tool to the new designated person or people. I would like the Signpost to continue. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉  04:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming  in, . I'm  not  sure, but  I seem to remember reading  somewhere in  the labarynthine Signpost  project  that  the current  E-in-C created a new publishing  tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Evad37 has not  edited since 28 February. I  do  hope everything  is well  with  him, but  we need to  find a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No replies to my email pings either. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor to mine. The publishing script is here. The manual process is described here but it looks extremely complicated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take it on. Shifting to Signpost newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you will need to get the MassMessage sender rights globally too - you can ask at RFH. --Rschen7754 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks 7754, another admin helped (see below). If we don't get a publication manager by ~4 weeks from now I'll ask for it to be made perm. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I did everything possible, incuding receiving mass-message rights to send notices on enwp! We haven't sent a tweet, Facebook update, or Wikimedia-L notices yet, could you? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Bri. Someone called me (not realising it was middle of the night here) to tell me it was published . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting this published. However, I am not going to add Signpost work to my responsibilities. If I am going to be effective on my existing priorities and not get burnt out then I cannot accept the vast majority of requests that I get. Thanks again for getting the publication done. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 03:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks agian Bri. I never intended to get  involved in  Signpost but  I  will  attempt to  boost  the content of future issues with  an op-ed on  some topic or another, and do some proof reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Grant proposal
I wrote a draft grant to WMF to fund me to continue as Publication Manager for three months on a trial basis. This was done without any consultation so it might be dumb. But it might not. Comments can be made at the link provided. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

COI case
Dear, I was cleaning up one Forex broker company article and noticed that another broker company article TeleTrade Group has been heavily edited by a connected contributor. I suggest you to follow up with this. I am not sure I can do it the right way. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done some. Missing this though. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will check. I am not sure that is was shut down completely, probably just a small DDOS attack. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up. Looks like it's been well taken care of ☆ Bri (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

When was born Jill Filipovic?
Tell me, please, where has been a problem? Was she born as the article states, or the date and month are unknown, as in info box? It seems (at least: to me) as an incogruence, if not a contradiction. Please, explain me the logic to know it for future. Thanks. --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pkease review Jill Filipovic again. There is no disagreement between the article body and the infobox. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Corrections Needed: Fourth and Madison Building page
Hi Bri, I'm trying to speak with someone about corrections to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_and_Madison_Building

Chiefly, the ownership is listed incorrectly (TIAA-CREF is now just TIAA), and the building is named inaccurately (e.g. it's just called 'Fourth & Madison' and it is stylized with the ampersand officially). I tried to make these edits myself, but they were changed. Can you assist? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynhorn (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who changed it so you're probably not at the right place. Rationale can be viewed here and here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Great Western Iron and Steel Company/Workpage
Would you mind doing something with Great Western Iron and Steel Company/Workpage? It's currently in the Article namespace, and is in Category:Misplaced workpages. Ideally, it would be incorporated into the article, but otherwise it could be moved to the Draft namespace (where it will probably get deleted if it sits too long) or to Talk:Great Western Iron and Steel Company/Workpage. I'm no expert on policy. Daask (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done → Talk:Great Western Iron and Steel Company/Workpage.

MassMessage Sender rights
I've given you the ability to send mass messages. This should solve the Signpost problem? If you need help on Meta, I can do things over there as necessary. Courcelles (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; meta can wait a moment, I'm a little spooked right now honestly. Never mass messaged before. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm ready to do the meta mass message if you can set the permission bit ☆ Bri (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Set for a day on Meta. (I've never given it out over there, and you're less active there.)  Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Charley the Tuna and the Washington Post
Moved to Talk:Leo Burnett Worldwide

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

AfC notification: User:Bri/List of 100 best SF novels has a new comment
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:1em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;width: 100%;"> I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Bri/List of 100 best SF novels. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User_talk:Xaosflux
You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Xaosflux. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: It's been ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

11,000+ for the Squirrels
Not only did we make the main page on 4/1, over 11,000 took a look. Do we get a prize or something? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  05:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I got nuttin'. Guess I wasn't considered a fur-most author. It's OK, I've got plenty of DYK credits squirreled away. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your article
I like your article draft about solutions to making the Signpost 'better'. Nice job. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For stalkers, it's User:Bri/Signpost ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.
You just made my day, here. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost (2)
I've gotten a watchlist noticed approved and listed. If there is a slot in any of the unfilled positions on the editorial team that I could temporarily fill within my capabilities, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it and sorry I didn't have time to weigh in at the discussion first. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * there is something you can do actually. Would you review User:Bri/Signpost for suitability? If you like it you can change the status to "Status|In development". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an absolutely necessary article. I've corrected a couple of typos but there is more I  could do. IMO  it  rambles a bit and I could do  a full copy edit  for better readability, but of course I  would not do this without your approval. That said, as you  will  have seen from  my  writings over the years, I'm  a bit  old fashioned and as I have a background as a published author, and newspaper contributor (in  English, French, and German), my style for publications tends to be slightly more formal. I  would absolutely not expect  any  attribution for  copy editing  it -  I  do  enough  around the Wiki already :)My other concern is that there are so many  questions and suggestions that the user comments may possibly develop into an unmanagable thread which ultimately would perhaps be better directed to a dedicated suggestions sub page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, I didn't expect it to be copyedited already. You know it started with me just throwing a bunch of ideas into a bucket, then Eddie chipped in with some more. Anyhow, thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, just one thing: we still need it actually to be approved by changing "Status|Unreviewed" to "Status|In development". Here's the edit link ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't copy edited it yet. Just corrected a couple of tyos. Copy Editing  is something  quite different. I  would need your  approval to go ahead. I could do it in my user space and you could check it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's wait to copyedit ... I may be doing some more rough expansion ☆ Bri (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought you'd be interested in this - which certainly proves a point. Maybe you can add it to the list of publisher duties. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

E-inC
I think the Signpost needs a new Editor-in-Chief. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've solicited input on division of labor at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tammie Jo Shults


A tag has been placed on Draft:Tammie Jo Shults requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"duplicate of Tammie Jo Bonnell"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WWGB (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

ACPERM
Thanks for the CE. I've since made a couple more repairs to  typos and a minor prose improvement. I won't  be making  any  more changes now. I've made a couple of very minor tweaks to  your  article which I  assume is now ready  to  go. I've added some comments to various  things in the newsroom but  with  all  those transcusions and tables I  never know if I'm  working  on  an original  or a transclusion. It's all very  confusing -  the workflow really  needs streamlinining. perhaps that's why there are no  takers. Who chases up  the late submissions of the regular contributions? Who is going  to do  the honours of CE-in-C, or do  we just  go  ahead as is? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Contentstack
Hi, Bri. As per your request, I added the disclosure you asked me. I'm also currently editing the Wikipedia site of my hometown. Its English version is pretty barren. I'll try and make it better. I wish I had a profile as cool and optimized as this one. Mine is a dwarf in comparison. Dsalinasgardon (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Dsalinasgardon
 * Editing about geography is usually OK, just be careful about any COI such as business-related items or people you personally know. It's always cool to use an WP:Edit request for anything you think is iffy. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I just want it to have cool info in English too without having to translate the whole thing from Spanish (which is something many people do when it comes to creating articles in Spanish), so there's no problem.

Regarding Contentstack, I get what you're saying and I'll try and be more neutral and encyclopedic. If the edits seem too business-like they lose value for every person looking to learn stuff. I'll add in controversial and even negative info if that helps the article achieve a more neutral standpoint that goes with the Terms.

Dsalinasgardon (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Dsalinasgardon

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Added to my shadowbox ☺ ☆ Bri (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

News and Notes - 2 submissions
Looks as if we have two sub missions now for this. Can I merge the second submission into mine (which  is the most  comprehensive (Signpost section  would then be presented by co-authors)? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep both in the "official" location Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. I can do the merge if you like assumed you would want it merged so it's done. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with  that. How do  we normally  avoid duplicate submissions like  this? Perhaps there should be an advice note  somewhere like 'Check  to  see if a similar submission is aready  drafted'.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Am thinking over how a workflow makeover for next issue. Do you have thoughts? Is the Article status "scoreboard" even useful? Maybe we should just drive it all from the TOC. Or – better – drive it all from WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue. I just found out that the "ready" flag in the article template controls publication, so the scoreboard is somewhat redundant, though possibly useful if we like to see everything at a glance. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 's recent comments have almost put me off wanting to continue to help. I've already  said I  would be willing  to  help  in some limited capacity, but I can't hit  the ground running.  When I wrote Death knell sounding for The Signpost? I was expressing a very real personal concern at the apparent loss of our  newspaper. I did not actually expect it to generate the considerable response it received, in spite of which no one has come forward to lend a hand and none of the  mute members on the tables of editorial staff bothered to get (re)involved. If Zarasophos is complaining that some of them are inactive, then they need to be definitively removed from those lists.
 * I would be prepared to put my name in the Editor-in-Chief slot for a while as E-in-C (acting) but only if it is understood a) that this would only be temporary until we find one, and b) that it does not involve me in any technical tasks, i.e. limiting myself to submission selection and a final check on copy editing, titles, format, and sequence of appearance of columns. (Do you know, for example, that I still don't even know what 'blurb' is or where it appears, or what it's function is?!) I also don't  want  people saying "Uh Oh, Kudpung's found himself yet another hobby horse," which  is what  they  will  do, and, for  whose work I  have always held the greatest respect , can sing a song about that.
 * is a very good software programmer, often has good ideas, and some of the tools he has developed have become indispensable, but until we know what his publishing algorithm does, someone like me can't guess by looking at the code and if he's not willing to help at this stage then it will have to be abandoned. One of the problems at Wikipedia is that people come and go, write good tools, and then leave WP without a word, leaving their tools unmaintained. We've seen this with Coren and Scottywong to name just a few who have created some of the best tools that are now sadly missed.
 * If we are to streamline the process, and if I am to get involved, and if we want to make it easier for potential contributors to make submissions, we need to see  'at a glance'  what the current building blocks of the process are and make a proper workflow chart to see what does what, and what we can do to rationalise it. Previous E-in-Cs and publishers have all come with a knowledge of how these scripts work - I don't.
 * In just 2 days we reach the deadline for the next issue. I'm not going  to  try  and mentally  parse all  the bits and pieces, transclusions, min-templates, and whatever else that  make this thing  work, but  over the next  48  hours I'll copy edit everything  that's been submitted (if I can find it), suggest  what sequence the columns should appear, make more appropriate titles for some of them, and put  this in  a report  form for you  so  that  you  can apply  all  the required technology. How's that for  starters? It's 7AM here and I  have to go the the office, but  as always, I  have WP  open on  another computer on  my  desk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sharing some of your feelings on this -- we've gotten a few new GF contributors and a lot of Good Ideas from people who didn't actually stick around. I'm happy with the content quantity we got for April. But concerned about sustainability. So ... anyway. Last things first, for this issue, please just keep the Table of Contents updated and tell me when to pull the trigger. I can handle the rest. And yes, copyediting and helping to push stuff that's been started over the finish line. I think we should give Featured Content another day, then just chop out the parts that aren't done.
 * If the publishing script works perfectly, fine! If not, I can unravel it by hand-publishing again.
 * The blurb appears below the main title on the published table of contents. E.g. in issue 4, "Retrospective on article creation trial." was a blurb. And something similar with the RSS feed (which I've never actually looked at, and I don't know if we have any sub's there).
 * I have some unpublished thoughts on process and roles that I'll expand on after we do issue 5. Something like 1) E in C for final decision-making especially if we get something inappropriate submitted at some point 2) publication manager [of course] 3) talent scout 4) contributor liaison for help with content creation and meeting deadlines. Maybe one more for meta-process management and design, the stuff I've mentioned in the issue 5 op-ed. I admit that at this point you and I are filling all these roles, but they could be separated. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just reexamined the coloured table at  'Article status' and think that  it  shoiuld be the central overview/motor of what's going  on, and I'll  keep  it  updated. I'll  also  keep  the ToC updated, but  both of these seem to  be practically  a dup  of each  other. However, as I  have understood from  your  description, the 'Article status' table does not  actually appear to have a parser funtion that  triggers anything  in  the publishing  script. That  seems to  be somewhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Evad clarified. Selection from the current issue subpages is a publication manager action at runtime. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so  the final  decision  on  what  gets published rests on  you. I have updated the ToC and the coloured table but  they  are still  incomplete. If the ToC is the trigger, it  needs looking  at. At  least  I  have (I assume) a better overview of what  is going  on. I  have also reminded some authors of the deadline.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By pulling the trigger, I meant that the E in C role (you) tells the Publication Manager role (me) to go ahead and publish. Otherwise I'm crossing the streams of editorial and non-editorial control. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I seem to have a real knack for convincing people of the opposite of what I wanted to convince them of. Sorry if I discouraged you! --Zarasophos (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Off-topic, but I thought I would comment on just how sad it is that Recent Research cannot get published. I've myself tried–and failed to contribute, but I really enjoy reading it. 'Tis a shame. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Images
I realise that default size of the article lead image is determined by a template,  but  that  picture of the leader of N. Korea would have been enough  to  put  me off reading  the entire News & Notes column. So I've manually reduced it. Likewise, the nice image of Pompeo in  the In the media column looks disproportionally  large (and I'm not sure that  the caption is particularly  apt). Further examination reveals that the default size also takes up  a significant  amount  of screen real estate even on  a 13" laptop and I haven't  looked to  see what  happens on  mobile devices. Is this something  that  could be looked at for  future issues? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look at the template code and see what can be done. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that template. I've just discovered Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Style. It's all explained in there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

q

Question about Signpost
Hey, did you use MediaWiki message delivery to send the notification about the most recent edition of The Signpost? I'm wondering because it looks like the first link ("From the editors") is broken. Not a big deal but just curious if there's a way to fix this? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll check. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As soon as I typed that, the link started working, so nevermind :) Thanks for all your work on The Signpost, BTW, I really enjoy reading it. Marquardtika (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your poetic meter. Does it run on batteries or do you have to plug it in? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  14:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer to install a radioisotope thermoelectric generator in my prose for longevity. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Signpost?
User:Hurricanehink/sandbox - hey there, I saw your edits on the piece I hope to have in the Signpost. I wasn't sure if it was an appropriate topic, but I have lots of thoughts on Wikipedia and wanted to share them. More to the point, what is a proper blurb and author byline? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hurricanehink. You did the right thing putting it into the Signpost's suggestion queue. It looks like it hasn't been reviewed yet, so if you feel that development is done I'll poke the team and see if someone will give it a look-over. The blurb can be figured out by the team if you don't have one. It's just a catchy description a little longer than the article title; one sentence is usually plenty. As for your byline, it's pretty much any way you want to describe yourself to the readership; see contributor guidelines here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bri, I added my byline to the bottom. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, we are working out new procedures at the Newsroom but you should hear soon on whether this is accepted for issue 6. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was, and some comments left for you by Signpost editors ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

many thanks
thank you so much for the guidance on table editing. I managed to muddle through. I really appreciate your assistance. Not Wilkins (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)NotWilkins

Signpost drafts
I'm not sure what 'official' Signpost policy is, but I would imagine that while drafts are still in user space an have not been moved/transcluded to the newsroom, that they should still enjoy users space privileges. Even if for layout experiment purposes they are housed in a Signpost page shell. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, okay, sorry if I stepped on anybody's toes. I kind of assumed items in the suggestion queue were fair game for Newsroom editors. It's really unclear what our process is ... approve, then move to WP space, then copyedit? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. Your  CE  was very  much  appreciated. I  was alluding  to  a newbie who  changed some stuff and inserted his own PoV. It's early  days yet for  the next  issue and I'm  still  unclear about all  the different  transclusions of various status templates and where they  are. Like  you, I've dropped myself in  the deep  end with Signpost and the learning  curve is steep -  especially  as I  don't  intend to  be acting E-in-C for  ever. What  the newsroom needs is a visually  editable flow chart but  Wikimarkup  does not  extend to  such  a feature. All  I  have found are some pay-for cloud based SaaS solutions that  do  this kind of thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably: let the author claim  that  their draft  is 'ready' first, then transclude > CE > proofread > approve > schedule. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now, where you reverted. I agree process flowcharts would be really useful. For a technical article I made a simple sequence diagram with some free web-based software, captured an image snapshot, and inclued that in the article. It would be nice if we could do such visually in-wiki. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

LAMA
Thanks for your offer to help with my sandbox page, Latin American Motorcycle Association. I am unsure how to move it from sandbox into the real world. Can you help with that or tell me how to do it? I've only done it once or twice before and they were both a few years ago. StarHOG (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, I moved it to Latin American Motorcycle Association. You should see a "move" link at the top of the sandbox page if you want to do this yourself. Or just ask me again. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm
23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Signpost May
I have this idea to boost content: A column called 'From the Archives'. It would feature some of the most interesting Signpost articles and/or the most hotly debated ones. Where we are struggling still to prevent the periodical going permandetly out of print, what better way yo start the column than reprinting this page: Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/WikiProject report? Let me know your thoughts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an intriguing idea. It looks like that particular piece was also lol written during a period of interim editor-hood for The Signpost; would you call that out?
 * A concern with a retrospective would be this. Either you do controversies or non-controversial topics. If the former, you either do issues that are settled or ones that are not, and may never be: the WP: PERENNIALs. Either decision puts the editor/the work in a bind wrt unhelpful commentary. If it's solved, then it can be claimed to be uninteresting; "yesterday's news". If a PERENNIAL, it displays the community's rigidity, bureaucratization, and fundamental inability to tackle difficult problems. Not my point of view obviously, just guessing what some might say about it. It might take some careful thought to present the topic while heading off that kind of commentary. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will  only  be offering  content  that  is still sufficiently  discussed even though  it  may  be PEREN. 'From  the Archives' is supposed to  be an 'interest' column to  give Signpost  more of a newspaper/magazine feel. Reprints of such  articles will be made without  additional editorial  comment, and probably  won't  generate  a lot  of reader comments.  I  have replied to  your  other comment  on  my  tp. BTW, is there a Signpost  talk  page that  is exclusively  for  the use of the  regular editorial team? A lot  of important discussion  seems to  be very  spread around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Too tired to address everything you said coherently. Just for now the answer to the last question is "I don't know", probably not. This is a good motivation to look for the workflow software I suggested before. I wonder how much a license for, say, the five major Newsroom regulars would be? I looked a little bit at phabricator and all I can see is a software process centric tool – square peg, round hole (is that also a UK Eng. expression?). ☆ Bri (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we use that in  the UK too. I  have a lot  to  do  with  Phab, but  frankly  in  true MediaWiki style, it's a mess for  anyone who  is not  a geek. I  looked at  those SaaS cloud services and as I  said they  are all  'pay-for'. Now that  would be something  to  ask  for  money  from  the WMF for...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Signpost submissions
Hi, just a quick  reminder that  for  'In the media', deadline is in  7  days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bri, you know this already. I'm  just  chivvying  up  a few people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , regarding Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media, I will take credit if it is given – but the byline is "Eddie891" and he's listed as the lead editor on the assignments page. I've been contributing stuff but it's not formally my column; you can add me as co-writer if you wish. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Arbitration report: you may wish to rephrase the description of Opabinia's comment. 'as usual' is possibly not, IMO, always the case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * should be better now ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've extended this at the last  minute. I would appreciate  if you  could take another close look  at it for  relevancy, neutrality, and length. RfA is indeed my hobby-horse, but I don't  want  people claiming  that  I'm  using the magazine for  my  own ends. After all, I'm an admin  already. Next month's issue will discuss what admins actually do because from the various comments around the site (and even on RfA itself), I'm not  sure that recently  (and not so recent) registered users actually know. That said, although  you  have passed on  the task of publisher, how would you  feel  about  being  a co E-in-C? It's been done before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit that I sneaked a peek already, but will look hard for the issues that you mentioned. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't find the 'In the news' submission in the newsroom although I have srtarted a CE. There are a couple of snags but I don't know where to report them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are mixing up the titles "News and notes" and "In the media" which I do all the time too. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant 'In the Media'. I see someone has since done a CE but they have missed a couple of things, and for one thing, they have not checked the links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, it was a new guy copyediting but I should have reviewed. Was preoccupied with a possible publishing glitch; have informed Evad37 for a look. Ah, one last editorial thing, do you want to make mention of the tempest about failure to notify about the Amnesty bold women thing? Being "asked not to publicize" on-wiki for the event – and actually honoring that request – might be worth raising for community discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just  as confused as you  are, but  the mention  is OK.. The Women in Red project  is aware of the need to  inform  WT:NPR of upcoming  editathons, at  least  is. See  my  comment there. Perhaps I  should drop  a line to  Wikimedia -  we're still  smarting  from  their huge blunder a couple of years ago  with  the IEP  leaving dozens of  volunteers to to  carry  out  a massive cleanup  (an action  I  organsied and spearheaded) while the WMF enjoyed a junket to India to 'sort things out'.  I  wouldn't  mind a free trip to  India to  eat  some decent  curry again -  I haven't  been back there for over 10  years -  but we don't get the perks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - Women in Red's upcoming events, month-by-month, are listed here: WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've still not figured out where we are supposed to discuss detaios of getting a Saignpost togerther. [In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Recent_research Recent research] by Miriam Redi, is the grammar error in the title intentional for some reason or should it be corrected? I have completed the article I had postponed. Do we want it? Can you check it? It's not one of my beszt efforts. We are strll short of 2 articles to match the cointent of the last issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redi's title is "wack' was we say here, I'll fix it. My proofreading accuracy is way off this month. As for your Special report, maybe hold it for a cycle? It doesn't appear to be urgent ... the issue has your op-ed which is rather longer than most articles, plus a significant "from the editor". The risk is as you hinted above, having an appearance of a one-person platform, but if the content is perishable then maybe it should go in. If you really want the Special report in the May issue, we can either hold one of the other items (maybe the Admin Ship one) – or send all three out and manage complaints if they come up. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It will keep until next month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I notice left an edit summary:  'pls no refs in articles'   in one of his edits. What did he mean by that? Does he mean Signpost articles should not be sourced? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he just meant he didn't like the appearance of the footnote. When he changed itnto inline, he didn't actually remove the link that I'd put in there. Personally, I think footnotes are just fine. But I don't want to step all over people who are eager contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My reasoning was that footnotes are something that academic journals and books have, not your daily newspaper. What I think we should do in the Signpost is use inline links for all kinds of references, with the exception of Recent Research, since that has an academic content. Zarasophos (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible COI for article Odessa College
Hi Bri, seems I don't get to talk to you often. I hope you are well. I saw this edit on an article where the user who edited it has the same name as the article. Odessa College edited by a redlink editor named Odessa College with a redlink talk page. The entire article is pretty much uncited. They made a large edit to the page that seems to match the edits that the subject of the article might make. I looked at the WP:COI policy, but it is still not clear to me what step should be taken first. What would you suggest? They may not be aware of the policy so I want assume good faith at first right? Also, I should not assume that they are from the college just because they use that username, I need to find out, right? Should I just question them nicely? <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing is that username is not allowed as it implies shared use/role account. You can report at WP:UAA. Then you should post a uw-coi template to their userpage. Next steps are up to you: do you want to fix it yourself, and is it a recurring problem? If it is non recurring you may not want to file at WP:COIN, but if you think it's out of scope for one editor or want more advice, that's the place to go. In cases like this I feel free to revert any and all changes with a simple edit summary "revert to less promotional version". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bri, that is so helpful! I knew it would be though. So, I should post at the noticeboard you think? So far, it's just a one-time edit as far as I can tell. But this article has had scads of different editors so who knows. Thanks so much for your help. I will take these steps now. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Don't take it personally if it gets closed out with a comment like "no further action required" or "no ongoing COI". I probably won't be there to follow up; working hard on the upcoming issue of The Signpost. We're hiring! You'd have a great chance to have published pretty much anything relevant to the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:UAA says not to post the template to the user page and report it to them at the same time. But that's okay I got it. Interesting about the Signpost. I have what I need to follow up now. Have fun with your work on the Signpost, I'll check it out in awhile. Thanks again. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 17:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually it says "do not leave a username warning template on a user's talk page and then immediately report them here", i.e. at UAA. It is OK to simultaneously leave uw-coi warning. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An admin editor blocked the the user account and left a template message about editing without using a reliable source, username policy about not naming a user after an organization, and a suggestion to read the COI policy on the user's talk page. All is well. Thx. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sort of solved. You see, that editor is allowed and even encouraged to create a new account and continue to edit under the new account. So, that is why making sure they understand what is a conflict of interest and how to avoid it (the COI template) is important. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes I see what you mean. Good point. Well, at least I got that template in there thanks to you. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, that edit was a textbook example of how even in good faith, users with a COI are generally unable to contribute without promoting their subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for the delay. I saw your edit in a last minute check before bedtime. I meant to write you first thing this morning. Yes, the edit is full of promotional detail, I took another look at it just now. It reads like a college resume. I'm glad I caught this one then. I knew Bri was the right one to ask! Thanks. I will make a note of this to use as an example in the future. :) <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride
Thanks for your help getting these campaign pages set up. Much appreciated! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Signpost
Next issue will probably be my last as E-in-C or eben as contributor. I never did get on with Troutman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you reconsider. Without commenting on the issue directly, I'll just say I've noticed that tact isn't a strong point for a lot of people who are frequent contributors to online media. There's something about the intermediation of screen/keyboard that seems to allow us to dehumanize each other in ways that we'd never do face-to-face. I've caught myself doing the same. Taking this idea a bit farther, read Gender bias on Wikipedia and try to mentally erase the gender-focused descriptions of our cultural issues. Does "'culture of hacker elitism,' combined with the disproportionate effect of high-conflict members" ring a bell? It's just not a friendly environment to human beings with normal emotional makeups, at times. This is coming to a point, I think, at the RfA discussions with recurring themes of unkindness and retaliatory/punitive/harshly judgmental voting and discussion. It's a reflection of the worst side of the Wiki community, IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice work on In the media, Bri. A suggestion? Might be worth combining the two cryptocurrency COI refs, or at least putting them near each other since they're essentially the same story (not watching, please )  czar  19:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also pull the American Libraries entry. It's an excerpt from a book chapter written by Wikipedians (see the byline), not an independent assertion czar  20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh,, I don't see a reason to pull the story on the basis of authorship. It did appear under auspices of American Libraries. But I will realign the related stories.☆ Bri (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The magazine is only hosting an excerpt, so it's disingenuous to write that the magazine metonymously expresses a view as if it were that of its staff. If this is WP "in the media", the blurb is more that a chapter excerpt by two Wikipedians has been picked up by a magazine than that Am Lib is actually expressing the points of these two Wikipedians. (And by a lesser point, is it news that a WiR endorses libraries hiring WiRs?) czar  21:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that Leveraging Wikipedia was published by ALA. So it does have some implicit endorsement, don't you think. I'll just leave a note about the fact that it's an excerpt and who published, you can feel free to comment further in the reader responses, how about that? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your responding on my talk page, suggesting I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Signpost for info about Signpost. That's a helpful page, and lets me know reading it will take more time than I can give. For subscribing it referred me to a book (footnote 26) which referred me to the About page, which I finally found at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost (sorry I'm not comfortable with WP abbreviations) and which is even more helpful. One thought for what it's worth: The About page is quite helpful. If the navigation bar which includes it could be moved from the bottom to the top of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost, more people might find a seamless understanding of the project. Thanks for replying. Numbersinstitute (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * New reader

Sport-touring on North Cascades Highway
Your ST1100 photo would be fine, but first it needs more exposure and contrast, and the colours need brightening. Over to you! Arrivisto (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Promena Movement


Hello, Bri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Promena Movement".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  19:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Win a few, lose a few. Too bad my effort on translation from Bulgarian will be lost. At least for now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved it into your userspace. -- &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  19:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ellansé
While I agree the article is a mess, and might even count as eligible under WP:CSD, I don't know that WP:CSD is applicable. The article was created before the user was blocked. G5 generally is used for article created either in violation of a topic ban, or by the confirmed sock of a blocked user. Neither of those conditions applies in this case. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * G5 has been used at some admins' discretion in cases of ToU violation. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination - Successful
Hey Bri

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!

Please email us at merchandisegiveaway@undefinedwikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! Seddon (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To my nominators (you know who you are, and now I do too) : thanks! What a surprise and honor. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility
Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding edits cont
Hi there,

Thank you for your response-- I am still new to this. I have deleted all the links to the company's website (radius books) I apologize for updating it, we had a few readers call us regarding the un-updated wikipedia page. I understand if everything must be deleted-- but would it be possible for a third party to look over the added titles and approve them? I followed your advice and made a post on Radius Book's Talk Page requesting the updates.

Again, there will no longer be any links to the website, only a factual addition regarding the new titles for the years 2016-2018.

I appreciate your time and your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsinclairgregg (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this convo in one place, on your talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I responded there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsinclairgregg (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Honda ST series (merger)
Please see Honda ST series talk. Arrivisto (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to edit
Hi Bri! I'll be popping over the Newsroom to edit later (if it's not too late)! In the meantime, since I couldn't go to the protest in Tornillo, I started this article that you and may be interested in contributing to: Protests against family separation in U.S. immigration enforcement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger with Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles
Please see the recent merger on the Anti-lock braking system page. Some polishing still needed! Arrivisto (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Mail
I will get to your email today. Sorry about the delay. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  17:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Gavin Trippe death by Facebook
Can you keep an eye on Gavin Trippe? Somebody on Facebook said he died yesterday and Racer X online (whatever that is) reported it. I requested page protection until a reliable source verifies it. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dennis, it is in my watchlist but the concern is overcome by events; it is being reported by AMA now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The AMA is an industry trade group, not professional journalists, so while they’re reliable for a lot of motorcycle history and technical facts, the don’t necessarily follow any best practices when it comes to breaking news. They’re blindly trusting a guy’s personal Facebook post, and not doing any further verification. In these cases we should always take a breath and wait a few hours or a day or so, and in due course we’ll have something reliable to cite. There is no compelling reason for an encyclopedia to be up to the minute on this. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, on second look that was sourced to the same Facebook by the son, but one FB post isn't good enough for Wikipedia. I checked Orange County Register and didn't see anything there. Nor LA Times. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tammie Jo Shults
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — Maile ! ☆ Bri (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Which Beverly Hillbillies article did you edit?

 * Barbara ✐ ✉  23:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It must be this, I don't see or recall others ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Cell Therapeutics
Bri, were you planning to return to continue your review of this DYK nomination? If not, please let me know, so I can call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, I had completely forgotten starting this review. I will continue it today. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The Departure film - deletion review
Hello Bri - I expanded The Departure (film)'s page on May 11 with a synopsis and critical reception summary. You deleted these revisions on the grounds that the synopsis was a copyright violation from the Arizona Daily Sun (full explanation below).

The Arizona Daily Sun article pulled most of its content from the film's original press kit: https://dogwoof.app.box.com/s/yq1py8ebtic6jwyjt0xwww1qw9wvpx6i

Could you reverse this deletion? Let me know, and thanks --Wikiediting54321 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 02:40, 13 May 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,158 bytes) (-6,640)‎. . (Undid revision 840748564 by Wikiediting54321 (talk) copyvio - c/p from http://azdailysun.com/calendar/arts/the-departure-film-premiere/event_3496b556-f243-11e7-97da-308d99b24d4f.html) (thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * I don't really see why. So it was copied from the press kit? Doesn't change WP:COPYVIO if copied here. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Motorcyclists organizations has been nominated for discussion
Category:Motorcyclists organizations, 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. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Season, huh?
I have to say I find the redlinks in the infobox a little disturbing :/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought those would be suppressed by setting "season" parameter to "no" in the infobox. Maybe somebody can figure it out. I fixed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, let's hope that helps! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you delete our dedicated WORKING Site: http://www.HenryBerryLowrie.com?
Bri,

You have removed my entries about HENRY BERRY LOWRIE and LOWRIE WAR.

You state it is because the site has NO content. That is WRONG!

www.HenryBerryLowrie.com is an up and running site (7/26/18) that includes PAGES:
 * LOWRIE WAR (that includes Video from AFTERSHOCK by IDMB about the Lowrie War & Books on the Lowrie War)
 * Gallary (Photos)
 * LINKS (to external pages --- Wikipedia and others)
 * BOOKS (with several books on the subject - some out of copyright that are free to download)
 * LOCAL (History of the area / the local Indians / Area Tourism)

If this link is not working - and it should be - I TESTED IT, please contact me: suede_dickerson@outlook.com

The LINKs you are deleting are DIRECTLY related to the subject: HENRY BERRY LOWRIE

In advance, THANK YOU.

Suede — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreichel28 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the menus, sorry but it is not a "conventional" navigation system. BUT if this is your site, you shouldn't be adding links to it on Wikipedia. See WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO. It would also be a violation of WP:COPYLINK as far as the YouTube videos hosted there: the videos state "Presented by the History Channel. They own all rights to this, and have the right to tell me to get rid of it if they so declare." Definitely not OK to link on Wikipedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Denials, denials
Hi Bri. Re this response, you'll be amused by my lengthy exchange with a user who despite his protestations was ultimately checkuser-confirmed as a sock of the FFHypeTEAM brigade. I've never found a single one of their socks who has ever admitted to being paid. Here's another example. I could be wrong this time but... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

American Bucking Bull
Hi Bri, seems the only time I post here is when I'd like you to take a look at something. There should be a coffee club to catch up with friends! How is the Signpost going these days? Still looking for editors? I'm involved in Women in Red and Vital Articles right now. How much work does involvement in the newsletter take? But I did also come here to ask you take a look at this discussion on one of my articles. I'm not sure what's right. I did think it was a shame the editor did not at least attempt to collaborate with me before taking it to a merge board to request consensus. Do you have knowledge of splitting articles? Thanks in advance if you can weigh in just a bit. As usual, no problem if you feel this is not an area you can get involved in. The discussion is here. Happy Hump Day! <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 17:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Signpost is always looking for help! Right now really need people to adopt columns. But ad-hoc help gathering media mentions or copyediting is also a good way to start.
 * Before I jump in at the bull-discussion, I'll watch the discussion. I'm not as passionate about splitting and merging as I was once; it seems that a lot of the value of categorization can be gained by placing categories on redirects, and multiple infoboxes can be displayed in one article. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds like a good plan. I'll ponder your information on Signpost and take a look; I could potentially find some time; perhaps it could be a good learning experience. There's only so much one can do at Vital Articles, and it's a never ending project. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 20:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

August wikibreak
To talkpage stalkers and especially The Signpost's newsroom and the E in C, I'll be taking a wikibreak for most of August, starting in several days. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You deserve the break-thank you for your comments on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  21:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Needing help to understand what I'm doing wrong...
Hi Bri:

I noticed you were part of a thread conversation a few weeks ago about the KEN URBAN wikipedia page. Ken noticed that his page had just recently been tagged as having paid contributions. I worked with Ken and I update/correct his page as needed or as new interesting items happen in his public work life. My user profile has the disclosure that I worked for him. What more do I need to do?

Also that tag says there "may" be cleanup needed "to maintain a neutral point of view." Any opinions about Ken and his work are cited as from media sources reviewing his plays. There is nothing I can see that belies a neutral point of view -- I am a writer who has been trained journalistically and I always write items like this for neutral point of view.

Can you help me understand what I might be missing? Thank you!

Johnmichaelkennedy (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you are talking about Ken Urban and placing Paid contributions? There is no hard-and-fast rule but we usually keep those POV tags until enough non-connected editors work on the article to alleviate concerns. I'd say after 3 or so editors come along and make substntial changes, it would be eligible for a review. Possibly less if there was major cleanup. this edit doesn't really count because it is just cleaning up citations, not dealing with actual article content. The article has some glaring structural issues such as claiming a Ph.D. for the subject without a citation, and eight awards without citations. This really is a consistent problem with articles written by connected editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Regrets
My writing for the Signpost is seen as violating my topic ban. I have to back out. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  02:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Not even the humor column? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially the Humour article. See my talk page for more info. Barbara ✐  ✉  11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in this. In fact I think it's most appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Carl Jung off limits for a farce contribution ... facepalm ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bri and, the problem was the list of links about sexuality in the templates (now deleted). Her topic ban is "human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". Creating joke templates about Freud and Jung is an odd way to respond to that.


 * But in my post to Barbara about the ban, I said that I didn't want to interfere with the next Signpost: "I don't want to interfere with the next Signpost edition, but please don't write jokes related to human health for them again." There was no need for her to request deletion, although now that she has, it's better to leave things there. SarahSV (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Manchik for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Manchik 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/Joe Manchik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2018
01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

DYK for Denny Way
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Spam section
Could you please remove my site from spam section? I didn't know that I broke some rules. I'll never do this again. In addition, I fixed some dead links with archived and newer versions. Petermelville (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No ☆ Bri (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What can I do to improve the situation? Can you help me? Petermelville (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's OK. You can delete this section if you want. Petermelville (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Cattle grid
Hi, reverted your revert on cattle grid, I did not change the term used in US and Canada indiscriminately, I have rechecked my changes. I replaced most guards with grids to ensure consistency in the article since the article title is "Cattle grids". If you notice, although I did this I did change around the country names so they appear with the appropriate term. If you still disagree, please quote issues on talk page. Best, Waddie96 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow up at Talk:Cattle grid ☆ Bri (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your signpost comment
With the rest period requirements listed at that link, I'm guessing that was an attempt to mollify employers into hiring some kids. It's insane when a state bordering Washington still has an across the board minimum wage under $8. There was a similar law in Indiana at one time, but it was couched in language about student status rather than age, and it was eventually kicked out on a civil rights basis. Kids of Washington unite! Get a lawyer and ensure your unemployability. John from Idegon (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock article creation tool
Seeing Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard reminded me that I'd been meaning to make a tool that would automate producing posts like that from an SPI. Do you think that'd be helpful? Basically take any (blocked?) user in checkuser and list their article creations. I've got bits of code that I could cobble together to make it it'd be helpful. I'd need to figure out how to host it on toolserver too. Still working on more advanced things but don't have as much time as I had anticipated earlier in the year! SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely useful, would save me a lot of time with tedious cut-and-paste. But it may produce so much data to overwhelm current SPI page. Thinking of a way to handle it administratively. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It would take a sockmaster name and return the kind of content you posted to COIN. It would be for creating posts for COIN rather than posting on SPIs. SmartSE (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a brain fart; I meant to say "on the current COIN page". In other words, would there be room for actual COI discussions or would the page simply be overwhelmed by semi-automated dumps of crud articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah I see your point. It shouldn't be any worse than it already is and while there are likely to be some articles that don't need attention, it seems to me that it's easier to start with the long list and then whittle it down, rather than looking through all the contribs and copypasting. SmartSE (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A request for help
Hello sir, I am a wikipedian and had contributed to nearly 200 pages on wikipedia. I need your help becuase you may be the only one who can help me. I was interested in music and so i had been editing pages of american rock bands to add updated info and some honour related stuff. Since, you are from seattle its obvious that you maybe a fan of pearl jam. Actually, i like them too. So i did an edit on their page referring them to be one of the greatest band ever and cited the same statement of a very veteran and soon legendary artist named corey taylor and also ben harper. But some haters are relentless in reverting my edits and giving absolutely no reason for the act. I, thereby from the depth of my heart request you to please add this content to their page's forefront because they can't stop a master like you. Please for the sake of pearl jam, for the sake of grunge, for the sake of seattle and most importantly for the sake of wikipedia. I would always be indebt if you do it. A Honest Wikipedian Chandra Shekher Mishra 2405:204:A182:ACBC:26F:64FF:FECD:6FED (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The above message is from me,sir. You can talk to me now for more detailed information.Mr.Stoppable (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Open note to TPS
My personal situation is probably going to change beginning in July with fewer hours devoted to Wikipedia. If there's any business I can take care of in the near term, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll probably go dark for a little while during a transition period then come back in a reduced contributor state. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask you about turning this blue --- if your situation changes and you would like to, let me know. Best regards, —  xaosflux  Talk 03:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (+1)--Wot Xao sez:) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 05:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did the RfA thing. Not sure it's time to do it again. The stuff I think is important and don't plan on not doing, was the crux of the "failure to gain consensus". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WMF PII data spill
This whole ramble will be more clear when you see The Signpost Issue 9, just published on August 29 ... look for the News and Notes section on Go Fish Digital written by and titled "WMF hires a spam outfit". This is partly a memo-to-self and partly for TPS or someone who comes here after publication.

The Signpost repeats something I stated in another venue about spillage of Personally identifiable information (PII) on EnWP users (I.e. you and me). This accords with Phabricator ticket 92893 in which Director of Site Reliability Engineering Faidon Liambotis says "The console data contain PII, so an NDA would be absolutely required". I said "de facto" because I didn't want to parse and defend whether or not the outside firm actually pulled this data and/or used it abusively. I think we are in the right to say we assume it was until proven otherwise, especially from a firm with a standard of business ethics such as this one's. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock tool
I've written the code for the tool, but it might take me a while to work out how to make it usable from https://spi-inspector.appspot.com/ or somewhere on wmflabs. In the meantime, drop me a line and I can create them for you. I was thinking that it'd also be helpful to trawl through the contribs and create a list of diffs where substantial bytes were added to other articles a la https://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor/ (RIP). SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Holy Names Academy: seeking advice
As you know I have been focused far more on Commons than on Wikipedia in recent years, so even though I'm an admin I don't fully know what may currently be the acceptable way to proceed in a dispute.

I made this edit, trying to fix what I consider an anachronism in the Holy Names Academy article. User:ToconnorHolyNames, which appears to be a single-purpose account (virtually all edits are to this single article), reverted me with the comment '(Undid revision 859781361 by Jmabel (talk) The correct and legal name of this neighborhood, as currently designated by the City of Seattle, is "Chinatown/International District." It is not anachronistic. See https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Neighborhoods/Districts/Neighborhood%20Snapshots/Chinatown-ID-Little-Saigon-Snapshot.pdf. See also the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown-International_District,_Seattle)' (which is funny, because I wrote a good chunk of that page). As I'm sure you know, as a Seattlite, neighborhood names here are at most quasi-official even when used by the city gov't, and the fact that the name is used now has nothing to do with whether it is anachronistic to use it with reference to the period 1884-1906. The term "International District" simply did not exist in that era. Until the regrade, the location of Holy Names was simply "Jackson Hill".

Anyway, trying not to edit-war, I wrote my response at Talk:Holy Names Academy, where he has chosen not to respond. Is there anything I can do other than simply revert him, which seems painfully close to edit-warring? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That article is an ad masquerading as an encyclopedia article. I've made some cuts and much more is to come. I doubt the person opposing you is going to worry too much about your edit much longer. John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like this edit by Voceditenore is sticking. Hopefully this is the end of the argument on this semantic point. Good luck ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Future Electronics
Can you have a look at the history there and see what you think. I'm a bit bored playing ping pong and not sure of the COI procedure Lyndaship (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not available at the moment, recommend taking this to WP:COIN where a whole lot of people will be interested in helping. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Signpost
I found some extra time to help out at the Signpost. I hope this is an encouragement for you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  23:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of One people under one God for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One people under one God 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/One people under one God until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. w umbolo  ^^^  17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * *sigh* + Articles for deletion/Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March + Articles for deletion/Women's March on Portland --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a similar experience at Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle, which is an article I would like to move back into the namespace.
 * For this and other reasons I have started to draft Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics. I am having difficulty articulating the issue, but one way to describe the problem is a trend for people to argue at AfD that topics which meet Wikipedia's notability criteria still merit deletion. I had imagined that "notability" was everyone's standard for inclusion but too often people are arguing other inclusion criteria. I want to start categorizing all the rationales which have been a basis for deletion. In these cases people are saying merge because they make a judgement that despite passing WP:N, doing merges is the right thing.
 * I am not aware of this argument having any basis in a policy.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One people under one God will undoubtedly suffer the merge–delete cycle you identified in the essay. No way is that much content going to survive the merge intact. I've not got the cycles right now to fight it. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Voila: nine kilobytes magically becomes 387 bytes. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Signpost Op-ed detail
Thanks for your question! It's not an official RfC at this point, but it is a proposal – that is the wording on Changing_policies_and_guidelines for proposing changes/additions on the relevant talk page. There was an earlier version of the text where I called my signpost op-ed a "request for comments", and I changed that wording since that would be indeed misleading, given the official term RfC. But proposal would appear to me to be the right word at that point. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bri&action=edit&section=10

I don't like it. A call for customer feedback IMO is unnecessary. Many Wikipedians are mean spirited and absolutely revel in muck racking and opportunities to attack each other  either directly or through back-stabbing elsewhere. This kind of appeal will just put beans up their noses and I would regret ever having had anything thing to with the magazine. I think there should be a firm editorial stance and policy to refrain from The Signpost becoming a gutter press. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * From the editors

Signature change
I have changed the appearance of my signature.  Barbara    ✐  ✉  10:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hyperion proto-supercluster
Hello! Your submission of Hyperion proto-supercluster 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! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Requiem (Saint-Saëns)
Hi, in future, please be aware that per Rule H2, you are not allowed to approve your own hook. If you find yourself offering an alt suggestion, please call on another reviewer to complete the review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks Yoninah. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Hyperion proto-supercluster
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Coal-fired pizza
I am a bit confused I always though coal fired pizza used charcoal. they actually use coal? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 21:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the Northeast (U.S.) yes, it is coal. Anthracite, specifically. Here where I live (Cascadia) there is neither charcoal nor coal, but wood fired pizza; often alder or apple wood. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Signpost
Oh, don't worry about not recognising me. I haven't really been on Wikipedia for two years because of a Wikibreak, so even if you knew it, it would have been long, long ago. I'll probably just do the update to the start of December, then catch up to whatever lead-time we want for this for the issue after that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM
08:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Student editor
Thanks for taking care of this. I saw the edit and noticed it was made by a student doing an assignment for a class. I don't have any experience with student editors so I reached out to Ian (Wiki Ed). Just an FYI. Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Diclofenac
Hi, May I know why did you remove the reference. For diclofenac-Vultures are long lived and slow to bread. It starts breading at the age of 6 and only 50 percent of them survive. This was included by me and with reference. You removed the reference and kept the text in article. Which reference are you going to introduce to this text. It it fair to steal some else work and put other reference? I need an explanation. I need those references back Omairosmani (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Do you mean "stealing someone else's work" (English corrected)? Who is stealing what from whom? And what does any of it have to do with bread? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought you removed a reference link from the diclofenac. My apologies Omairosmani (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Even if the government ban is fully implemented it will take several years to revive the Vulture population- this was taken from themedpharma.com and given a wrong reference. May I know why is that? Either this sentence should be removed or should me give the right reference Omairosmani (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talkpage ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Nomination of List of Native American women artists for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Native American women artists 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/List of Native American women artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Request
Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was reviewed by MrX. Also, I rarely collaborate with paid editors, there's plenty of non-compensated stuff to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Season Greeting
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FFD700; background: #FFB924; border-width:4px; text-align:center; padding:7px; height:220px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

May next year be prosperous and joyful.

– Scope creep Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11.02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Woman-friendly workplace


Hello, Bri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Woman-friendly workplace".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hhkohh (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy happy
and all the best for 2019! - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bri!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best, Bri,

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)