User talk:Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2019/June

Request
Hi Megalibrarygirl! Can you userfy Chyanne Dennis for me? Thank you! Hmlarson (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I've moved it to User:Hmlarson_/Chyanne_Dennis but something is wrong with the move. can you help? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wonder if it is because there is a _ after my user name? Might work at User:Hmlarson/Chyanne_Dennis instead. Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I get an internal MediaWiki exception when I try and click on that link. Looks like a bug :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks to some help at the Village Pump, it's fixed. User:Hmlarson/Chyanne Dennis. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)



Hmlarson (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see Chyanne Dennis is already in mainspace. Some of us have been discussing including women footballers as a Women in Red priority for August. Would you be interested? Would August be OK or can you suggest a more suitable month?--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - it's currently the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup through early July w/ quite a bit of activity in terms of new articles, editing and increased news coverage. If July is already full, August would be great. Thanks!! Hmlarson (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
I just want to make you aware that you were mentioned here. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks, . Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled
Can you explain this removal? I saw the office explanation which, while it didn't use the term "COI" if I recall correctly, clearly was suggesting that a conflict of interest between Fram and ArbCom was part of the rationale for office action. I'm seriously wondering whether Swarm misread it, whether I misremembered, or whether there is a separate statement motivating this claim. However, I can't remotely think of a reason why it would be inappropriate to ask my question. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I made a mistake during an edit conflict! Let me put it back. I wasn't responding to you, but to a post about a medical situation above. I sincerely apologize for my mistake. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Oddly, I was forced to do some research, and see that it is a reference to a huge section that was removed. Not sure that was a wise decision, but now I can follow the flow to some extent. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured it was better than just leaving it out. I didn't mean to make a mess of it and I'll not let it happen again. Scouts honor! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I try to find the positive side of things although heaven knows, that can sometimes be challenging. In this case, however it's quite easy. This incident has obviously sparked quite a number of comments and it is virtually impossible to keep track of who said what with a couple rare exceptions. Because of this incident, I paid a little more attention to some of the comments you are making on the page, and I find that you and MER-C are making some very sensible comments. I think there's more heat than light at the moment but I wouldn't mind chatting in a few days about how to move forward. I don't think I have anything particularly useful to add regarding what to do with Fram, but I think this incident highlights shortcomings of our dispute resolution processes, and we as a community need to take that on. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I think you're right, . When this calms down, maybe this will be a good opportunity to address the issues that people are having on English Wikipedia. I hope that something good can come of it. I don't mind that people are heated: I'm glad they care so much about their own ideas. I just hope I can persuade some to see that things don't have to be black and white all the time. I appreciate your comment here very much. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I think you're right, . When this calms down, maybe this will be a good opportunity to address the issues that people are having on English Wikipedia. I hope that something good can come of it. I don't mind that people are heated: I'm glad they care so much about their own ideas. I just hope I can persuade some to see that things don't have to be black and white all the time. I appreciate your comment here very much. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Speaking from experience, edit conflicts in fast-moving discussions like this are less likely to happen if you edit a section instead of the entire page. clpo13(talk) 20:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, and I'm going to be extremely careful going forward. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't know that. Makes sense, though. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sue, I want to thank you for your measured responses. You know where I stand on the whole situation, but I stopped responding (as usual). Just do not have the energy to deal with the drama. SusunW (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was just lucky to have a lot of time today. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Back in April, there was an interesting article in the New York Times: Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly. It seems pertinent to these discussions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Extremely relevant, thanks for sharing  S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF involvement
This:

puzzled me. I thought it was fairly well known that the WMF has been very involved in child pedophilia incidents which clearly involve editors, and may even involve situations in which the only relevant information is on wiki edits by those editors. Did I misread or misunderstand your comment?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * that wasn't on my radar. I really didn't know about that. (I still don't know and if you have information about it that you think I should see, let me know!) Though all the same, it does seem like they only get involved if something is a big deal or legal, as has been mentioned. I hope that clarifies where I was coming from. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should read "seems to me now." Obviously, they do get involved. I just didn't know that since I'd really rather focus on editing than anything the WMF is doing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , As I recently quipped in another context, this is a really big place. Hardly a week goes by where I don't stumble across something that's new to me but seems well known to a large group of people. In your defense, I trust it's understandable why talking about handling child pedophilia issues is not trumpeted loudly and broadly. In addition, they also take on instances of self-harm or threats to others. However, my goal wasn't to chide you for not knowing something, but my concern was you might view this recent incident as a "sea change", when it might be more properly viewed as an expansion of activities. I do agree with your characterizations that they typically get involved with things that are legal or "big deal". The WMF shot itself in the foot by suggesting that this was about a bad word used to characterize ARBCOM (which isn't remotely a big deal), I think the scant evidence suggests that this is about harassment. Not quite as big a deal as pedophilia violence but a fairly big deal nonetheless. That said, I clearly don't know all the facts, I'm getting a very bad feeling about this case.
 * Back to the main point — thanks for clarifying your position I now have a better understanding of your point. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, . The more I read and listen, I understand where people are coming from with wanting to see more transparency from WMF and I'm glad they are asking for it. I just don't know how that can be accomplished well if someone's (or many someone's) privacy is involved. I guess it did feel like a "sea change" to me. I'd seen where people had talked about the similar bans on Chinese and German(?) wikis and thought that there must just be a new thing going on that involved cases where things needed to be handled very carefully. I really don't know. I just know that I've heard the anecdotal stories about harassment and Fram and so I believe that there are victims and I don't want any victims' concerns drowned out. That's really important to me as an ally of people who have been a victim of anyone in the past. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernadette Vigil up for deletion
Hi I am wondering if you have a moment to look at Bernadette Vigil an artist (buon fresco painting, oil painting, illustration.) Her article is up for deletion, and I can't understand why - she has had multiple museum shows, is in three permanent collections (that I can find, there may be more) and has created numerous public art works. The article was is bad shape and I been working hard to improve it. There is not a lot of digitized material on her work. I would really appreciate some fresh eyes having a look at it. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look through some databases for more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Netherzone (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like you all got it under control. :) Nice job on WP:HEY. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you to everyone involved! Ever onward....! 23:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Angelina Virginia Winkler
Hi Sue, I just started the article on Angelina Virginia Winkler. This is a great photo of her, but I don't think I can use it in the article. If you have the time to do so, would you please check with the University of Texas at El Paso Library - Special Collections Department and see if they'd give up the copyright so this can get uploaded into WikiCommons, and get added to her article? Thanks, and no rush! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi ! I know one of the archivists there. I'll see what I can do. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey . The archivist got back to me, but it looks like they're retaining their rights at the moment. I'll try to see if I can get a better answer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's too bad. But thanks for trying, Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Vicki Varvaressos article
Hi Megalibrarygirl, I had just realised that Australian artist Vicki Varvaressos does not have an article. She would certainly qualify under WP:ARTIST 4d, as her work is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" (eg the National Gallery of Australia, Auckland Art Gallery , the Art Gallery of NSW and others). So I searched in draft, user and WP spaces and found that an article about her was speedy deleted in 2008 (User_talk:Kenshu96). It probably wasn't great, as it was deleted because it didn't "indicate how or why the subject is notable", but it might be something to build a new article on. Would it be possible for you to restore it (if it still exists) to my userspace, at your convenience, please? If not, I'll just start from scratch! I'm working on several other articles already, and I don't have any particular event in mind for this subject, I just thought I'd ask when I was thinking of it. Many thanks, and kind regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's really no content in there at all. All 3 edits are mostly nonsense. I don't think it would be useful to restore the nonsense edits. I'd go ahead and start fresh. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking and letting me know. No, nonsense would not be useful! I'll put her on my list to write a new article about her. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A small request
I'm struggling to keep up with the whole Fram issue. I suspect I'm not alone. I'm taking a stab at putting together a summary. While it won't cut out the need to read everything, it may help.

I'd love your reaction, while understanding that you may have enough on your plate.

User:Sphilbrick/Fram

I know this isn't truly comprehensive - for example, I'm familiar with some posts on some editors talk pages, notably Doc James, that are on point, but not sure there is anything critical deserving inclusion. S Philbrick (Talk)  01:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's good timeline and considering how much controversy the issue has garnered, will be useful to many people in the future. Already, it's been viewed 16 times yesterday and 14 times already today. Pagestalkers might want to weigh in, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mention in upcoming issue of The Signpost
Just wanted you to know your name is included in a report about FRAMBAN in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * if they're going to mention my time in the military, they really ought to add how often I've been "Godwined" on that same page. LOL Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "They" is me, actually ... I'm the author. I threw that part together quickly, so just let me know if there's any nuance about your experience you think ought to be mentioned. I thought of mentioning the Code of Conduct but it has to do with POWs which might raise more questions than it answers, if you know what I mean. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just making a joke about the Godwin's law thing. :) I'm glad you're still on the Signpost. The Universal Code of Conduct reminded me of how in the military we have that over-riding code and then individual units can decide to make additional changes (most of which somehow seemed to involve the way your uniform looked at different formations), but couldn't remove anything. I think it still leaves a decent amount of flexibility. I don't think I have anything else to add to the article except to point out that the loudest voices believe they have a "consensus" on Wikipedia. When I try to point out that they don't on the thread, I find that I become involved in rather heated discussions! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The tricky bit is deciding who has consensus in the first place. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's so true, . Though I don't think a self-selecting group of people count as "consensus" for Wikipedia. People who are willing to weigh in on that page are not reflective of Wikipedia as a whole. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a random selection of random Wikipedians. Whether or not that reflects Wikipedia as a whole, the mainstream Wikipedia intelligentsia, or a cabal/clique again, hard to tell. But Wikipedia is and always has been a do-ocracy (why do we not have an article on this topic?? time to WP:FIXIT!), so it belongs to those who speak up. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My take, worth absolutely zip, is that consensus has various meanings, or should. If one is speaking of a particular article, then that relates to the people involved on that page. If one is speaking of an RfC or AfD, it should involve a broader spectrum and involved projects. For RfA, or something like this where people are proposing to "speak for the community", it should actually actively seek input from the entire community, not just those who speak loudest. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there's that WP:CENT notice, as well as the various notices over the various noticeboards. It's a big clusterfuck, and like all clusterfucks, it's often hard to take anything away from it beyond a lot of people are pissed &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Never even knew that existed and I can honestly not recall ever seeing it. And you are absolutely correct, many of our systems appear to be FUBAR. SusunW (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I highly recommended watching WP:CENT for anyone that has an opinion on anything beyond a specific wikiproject. A lot of the stuff is whatever, but when there's a big discussion popping up, that's where it'll be. Saves you the hassle of watching all village pumps, and 42 different noticeboards, etc... &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CENT is transcluded to a lot of places where (it is hoped) people will see it. For instance: the village pump pages; community portal; most noticeboards, including WP:ANI; WP:Dashboard; and many users keep it on their own userpage. Bri.public (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got it on my user page... but then I don't usually look at that page to notice any changes. I've now tried adding the template Centralized discussion to my watch list, to see whether that alerts me to changes usefully often or irritatingly often.  Pam  D  18:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

For exceeding expectations as an admin

 * thank you! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric
&#x222F; WBG converse 13:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Access
Morning! Do you have access to the following JSTOR publication, The Southwestern Naturalist or know who does? I need to verify a bit of challenged material in the section Roe in Gar beginning with "When cooking roe"....ending with "to keep the gar eggs safe." Ping me. Atsme Talk 📧 11:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have send the pdf to you. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, WBG!! Atsme Talk 📧 13:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Super fast, ! Thank you! :D Glad you got it, :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

AfD for Amy Sequenzia
It appears you were not notified that the article is at AfD a second time. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks! And wow, has that article been through a lot! :/ Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what on earth that AfD was about. I rewrote the article, citing sources that I've used time and time again to rescue / improve stuff (hey, I read The Guardian, doesn't mean I'm a yoghurt-eating beardie-weirdie does it?), Megalibrarygirl did a bit too, and a whole bunch of people voted delete on something completely unrelated to WP:GNG. Oh well, shit happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks like since facilitated communication is a discredited idea, that the biography might be violating BLP. I figured if there was an Oxford volume on her from 2018 that meant there was some legitimacy to her claims. But I'm not an expert at all. I wonder if or others at WP:Disability might have a better idea of what's going on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just had a go at reading the AFD. The closer's conclusion seems reasonable. If we accept that facilitated communication is discredited nonsense, then all sources based on anything suposedly "said" by the subject are by definition unreliable and must be exluded per BLP. If the loss of such sources results in an unsustainable article, it must be deleted. However, I'm not sure if an article based around the idea of Sequenzia as a victim of charlatanry (within the limits of WP:AVOIDVICTIM of course) might be possible? (I think 's argument is pretty convincing.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your perspective, . It makes sense what you're saying. Since there was the Oxford thing in 2018, it made me think that there was something legit going on. The Oxford book talks about her using a special iPad, so I figured maybe that was more legitimate. It's all pretty sad and frustrating. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant a keep but on retrospection, think, that we are better off w/o an article about her. The band-gap between providing our readers with a scientific narrative and abiding by BLP policies at the same time, is too low for editorial comfort. Also, Balkan (the author of the Oxford piece) is an ethnomusicologist and not someone with relevant subject expertise. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am definately won over to the side that deleting was the right thing. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsafe
I request that you have a word with David Eppstein. He is an admin, and has advocated that I be blocked for being not here to improve Wikipedia. I already stated recently, I don't want vengeance. Earlier, though I never said it, I only wanted an apology and a warning for the offender. I wouldn't even have asked for them to be blocked. Now, I came specifically to offer constructive suggestions to your social media policy. I have been here since 2011 and have over 32,000 edits, more than enough for conduct issues to surface. I have zero blocks on my block log. I have zero sanctions by ANI/ArbCom, zero topic bans. I have 2 featured articles, 6 good articles, and at least 9 DYKs. It is frightening that David Eppstein could block me under not here to improve Wikipedia merely for offering suggestions, and perfectly emblematic of a "you're either with us or against us" attitude.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * May 2019 turns up an apparent threat . You are an administrator too. Would you make this kind of comments?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can email and see what's going on, . However, I don't find the diff you provide to be a threat at all. It's a very pointed suggestion about dealing with difficult issues. David had just written about what he sees as a factual statement for why the AfD happened at all, cites an ANI case and then points out that the AfD is not likely to be the result of sexism at all! He says "My own impression is that the nominator feels that some culling would make Wikipedia's collection of biographies of women stronger, which is sort of the opposite of a sexist reason." In the diff, David is specifically pointing out that Wikipedia is a place to engage in civil discourse. It's not a threat, nor is it a threat to you, so I would not worry about it at all. I too, would feel frightened about being blocked, so I empathize with you very much! I'm not sure of the whole story, but for now, I would focus on your good work and leave anything controversial alone until things are resolved. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am of course not going to block starship.paint. However, has done so "for Cross-wiki harassment of WMF staffers after being warned on the inappropriateness of similar actions". I know nothing of this cross-wiki harassment, but taking out-of-context complaints about one editor to a random other editor's user talk page (as here) is not a good look in that context. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:David Eppstein to clarify I did not block the user in question. I am, however, reviewing the block in question. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Someone else blocked and you adjusted the block settings. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I hadn't realized that was already blocked when I responded to them. Thanks for looking into things. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, Megalibrarygirl. Yes, I was blocked and unblocked. David seems to be Nostradamus. My thoughts are no longer on this issue, you need not follow up. Thank you for listening and for your empathy. I appreciate it.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem . :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)