User talk:Obotlig/Archive 1

Sigewif
Hello Obotlig, I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Sigewif--The citations and references look great.It would be great if you could also upload a picture for the related article Asakku.

It's nice to see you editing!Amy Z (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the intro. I couldn't find anything on the commons for that assaku article.  I'm not familiar with that area of mythology but perhaps there is a public domain book that would include a relevant illustration?  Obotlig (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:11 September births
Category:11 September births, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Pichpich (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard problem of consciousness
I undid your addition to the introduction of Hard problem of consciousness because it did not really belong there. It was not about the hard problem in particular, but about questions of consciousness in general. It perhaps belongs in the Consciousness article, but, again, not in the intro, but at an appropriate place in the text body. Stevan Harnad 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I disagree and feel that each issue is mentioned in that article.  It may be a matter of wording.  I think the intro parapragh as it was did not offer sufficient explanation for a layman.  I have started a conversation on the article talk page about this to see if some consensus can be reached on a better wording or why the explanation is misplaced or inaccurate.  Thanks again. Obotlig (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Helle Thorning-Schmidt
In Folketinget the other members are only allowed to address her as "Statsministeren". Not Ms. Statsminister or Ms. Thorning-Schmidt. Only "Statsministeren". I didn't vote for her, so like parts of the press I use less pleasant words about her :-) I'll make sure always to summarize my edits from now on, so they don't come across as vandalism.Carstensen (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations
Please do not throw accusations of "vandalism" into edit summaries before you understand what is going on. If you nonetheless believe I am vandalizing, please use the corresponding warning templates. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing the christian terrorism cat from the blp of a self-proclaimed christian terrorist is hard to assume any good faith of. Consider it a warning if you want. Obotlig (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Obotlig. I commented on a different matter, below, as you'll see. Thought I'd just politely shove my oar in here, too, to mention that you do need to be very selective in using the word "vandalism". Doing so in any but the most absolutely blatant cases, e.g. when someone randomly adds expletives to an article, is likely to get you in trouble. You can say, if you must, something like "that edit was erroneous" or even, in very severe cases, that it could be a possible bad faith edit, although that's also asking for trouble, imo. But do save the word "vandalism" for only those instances in which you're sure your point-of-view opponents would also agree with the characterization, without any doubt. It's a "hot button" or "loaded" word in wiki-speak, one that has a very narrowly defined meaning in our parlance, and one that's easy to get in trouble with, if used loosely here. I don't mean to be scolding or holier-than-thou in any way, please understand: Just trying to save you unnecessary trouble. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think I am too often abrasive and inconsiderate when I don't understand another point of view or haven't taken the time to even consider the reasoning of the other party. I will make my best effort to be polite and cautious here because I am finding it a rewarding activity on the whole. The terminology and rules are a bit confusing and I will remember to read the guideline pages as often as it occurs. Thanks again for steering me toward appropriate behaviour here. Obotlig (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For edit warring in 1RR articles
Hi. I saw your post to WP:AN3 about the Gilad Shalit article, and I commented there briefly. I just thought I'd mention that most editors would probably have taken that to WP:AE since Palestinian-Israeli Conflict ( aka "ARBPIA" ) articles are a rather specialized area of contention on Wikipedia. The admins who monitor that board are more familiar with issues specific to those articles, and also very familiar with the most prolific editors on either side of the topic area conflict, so you'll probably find that you get a more informed hearing there next time out than you're likely to obtain on other boards. You can't take your complaint there now, though, as I imagine you know, since that would be "forum shopping", and thus improper. I just thought I'd let you know of this if you have problems you need admin help with in the future, re articles under ARBPIA constraints. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I began to think that I should have taken the other avenue when Epeefleche began his irrational tirades and bullying, but thought the edit warring board was the easier route. Unfortunately I am already very familiar with his ilk and can recognise the behaviour patterns and thought processes well enough (at first sight) to know that it will just make me frustrated or angry. In the end I can only lose by investing energy in a competition of wits with habitually aggressive imbeciles who somehow have good standing with wikipedia. It's not a topic I care enough about to attract negative attention to myself from sorts of persons whom in my experience are extremely vindictive and have limitless energy to dedicate to it. Thanks again for the pointer and if it should arise again I will go the arbitration route. Obotlig (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you were able to take my comments as I intended them, both here and in the section above. I know well from personal experience how very difficult many editors who focus on Israel-Palestine Conflict articles can be. I refer to no particular editor, of course, but there's this very strident "my side, right or wrong!" propaganda mentality that overwhelms the whole topic area, and one that seems very clearly supported by off-wiki canvassing and alert mechanisms among like-minded partisans.


 * Similarly, and as I imagine you know, many editors have also observed previously that this effort appears to have strong institutional and governmental or quasi-governmental support, as well: This is very easy to see, for example, in the photos of the conflict that are made available to Wikipedia or Commons. These and other factors do indeed make it a very difficult area in which to contribute, and I certainly appreciate your efforts to keep the topic area from being completely co-opted by such efforts. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a widespread problem for a, for lack of a better term, democratic effort like wikipedia. For example I would imagine Mormon and Scientology articles face this. But those cases are probably well enough addressed by the existing balances, and there are limits to the energy, methods and resources those sorts of groups will bring to bear. In this other situation I think you are confronted with almost insurrmountably organised and entrenched opposition, ranging from the casual supporter and civic group member, to members of the governments, militaries and intelligence organisations of many nations, often possessing the dual citizenship issue that my edits (inadvertently) raised. It seems to me that one's allegiance should always be in question if you serve in the military of another nation or may have some ties, directly or indirectly, to its foreign intelligence agency. However this particular group seems to evade all scrutiny, even when caught in the act of sedition, espionage, even acts of war, or scream bloody murder if anyone so much as raises an eyebrow. As you note they are very well-entrenched on wikipedia and operate in varying degrees of coordination, formal or informal. I would rather avoid the issue or approach it extremely obliquely because there are other articles I care much more about improving and I am familiar with the consequences of collecting unnecessary antagonists of this ilk. Best wishes to you in you efforts to bring balanced points of view to any and all articles you find of interest. Obotlig (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation
Hi. I just wanted to remind you of the discussion concerning your 2 deletions within a 3-minute period, of the precise same edit, at an article under 1RR restriction. The discussion is here.

Your first revert -- deleting another editor's inclusion of the word "France" -- was here. Your second revert -- deleting the same word, a second time, three minutes later -- was here.

As I indicated, I believe that constituted a 1RR violation. The article is under 1RR restriction. Your two deletions meet the definition of what constitutes a revert (again, see WP:REVERT). Your edits were clearly related -- they were deletions of the same precise word, at the same article. And the edits took place within a 24-hour period (specifically, within 3 minutes). I think the best course would be for you to self-revert, under the circumstances.

As I also indicated, I've not brought a complaint to a noticeboard, or encouraged that you be blocked, but rather sought to address this through talk page discussion. You stated in our discussion on the article talk page that your second revert was inadvertent. But then, for some reason, you never corrected your (inadvertent) second revert, by self-reverting. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are deliberately harassing me. Please do not post this sort of rubbish to my talk page.
 * I believe an admin already closed the case where I also offered my edits for evaluation.
 * As you well know, an edit involving removal or replacement of material is not counted as a reversion unless it is restoring the article to some prior state from the previous 24 hours. I asked if that was the case and you did not indicate so. Otherwise I could construe every edit you make as somehow returning some portion of the article to some prior state even years in the past, if I looked hard enough. I do not believe an editor of your experience is ignorant or irrational enough to fail to comprehend that. I take this as willful harasment and bullying.
 * The use of the allegiance parameter in the military service template as you would like is false and misleading. It appears to be a part of some POV or political agenda to spread the falsehood that dual citizenship is not an active problem of mixed allegiance. At any rate that parameter of the military service agenda is to indicate what part of the war a person was on, and only might be different than the organisation served in for example in the case of a double agent or traitor.
 * I have nothing more to say to you about this. I am not interested in your lies, irrationality or very possibly seditious activities in articles about which I could not care less. Let us part ways permanently. I will be forced to complain about any further posts by you to this page. An admin looked at the edits in question by both of us and closed the case.
 * Goodbye. Tschüß. Geh raus. Bis nie. Hej aldrig. Mach frei. Au revoir. Obotlig (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Nordic?
Curious that you accused me of anti-Nordic vandalism, when I happen to be a member of haplogroup I1a and speak passable Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic. I'm pro-truth, and not anti - any ethnci or racial group. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to register an account so we can get to know you better. Anyone can claim to be anything or believe anything on wikipedia - actions and attitudes speak more. The map is true (or close enough). It has a graphic design problem (50% incidence should be 50% gray) but it indicates very relevant information about how the distribution of I1 (I1a was relabeled in light of recent studies) matches the location of Nordic people. I prefer fixing good information rather than deleting it. Haplogroups are mentioned in the text in several locations, and haplogroup is essentially a synonym for clade. If it were worth my time and I had statistics which I found reliable and detaled enough I would make a good map. I have limited time and resources for his right now. I find a map of that type fundamentally relevant to the article and it is not untrue. It is just poorly designed. It's better to show where I1 people live than show nothing.
 * I don't know if there is a Nordic people article but it should be the same as Nordic race - except that there is so much rubbish crammed into the article with the the details of scientific errors, pseudoscience and racism that maybe all the rubbish should go into a Nordic racialism article. "race" does not mean only arbitrary and outdated anthropological categories - it can also mean an ethnic group. Nordic people deserve a non-derogatory article about their history and qualities. Obotlig (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A recent exchange
Thanks for taking the time to spell out what you mean. I'll freely admit that I get a little testy, but to be fair, you set the tone there. You can't seriously expect to jump into a discussion with insults and personal accusations, without any specific engagement with the material under discussion, and not expect people to bristle, can you? For what it's worth, I'll repeat again; I have no agenda to push with regards to the EDL other than to see that they are characterized according to the best available sources. You keep talking about "bias" - would it be fair to say that you feel that you have an informed opinion, and most others ("the masses") just have uninformed biases? That's the impression that I get. Do you see the difference between a bias and an opinion, and between a (private) political opinion and an editorial POV? I've tried to articulate this for you, because I think it's important. And finally, let me just repeat what I said in nearly every comment I made in that discussion: please participate, by all means, but do so by suggesting specific changes you'd like to see to the article, with specific sources to back them up. For better or worse, that's how wikipedia works. Auf jeden Fall, I wish you happier editing in the future. Sindinero (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Freyja. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SudoGhost 05:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You don't think this is true? Is the sky green or something? I think Freyja and Skadi will not appreciate you defacing their articles, or any libel that exists on them. I personally would not make them angry. Obotlig (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Odin. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. What source does there need to be for people who are obviously alive being alive? Perhaps you would like a demonstration? How big of an asteroid do you want? Obotlig (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Saddhiyama (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Responded. I have agreed to stop this and any related behavior in article and article talk space. I guess some myths were not complete nonsense because those women are definitely alive right now, definitely as described, and are able and willing to demonstrate it. Thank you for your efforts to uphold scholarly standards on wikipedia. Obotlig (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The White Ribbon
Thanks for your ideas about The White Ribbon. I made a few changes that borrow from your input without attribution and I hope you don't mind. I'm not sure about the Protestant/Lutheran distinction; I have a copy of the screenplay translation and neither word appears. This is a detail. I really don't know if the meeting with Eva's family must be included. We leave out many scenes and the opening and closing covers the fact of their engagement without detail. It's a balancing act. Thank you again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for your attention to this. I also apologise for the back-and-forth over it before when discussion was called for.  I think the lumping of the "mysterious events" together is a confusing element but I am not really familiar with what is expected in a plot summary for a wikipeia article.  Some of the events are explained only to the udience and some are left without any exlanation at all which was presumably intentional or meaningful.  As to Protestant vs. Lutheran I would guess it was inferred that this is a protestant rather than catholic village because the pastor has a family, was not addressed as a priest, etc.  I am not sure of the relevance of the label but it would be obvious to a German audience that these were protestants (which would mean Lutheran to them).  I am not sure we should include what might be an obvious but unstated conclusion an audience would reach, or why or by whom the label Protestant was inserted in the article.  It is accurate but I also think the details about Eva as I gave are also essentially how she was intended to be seen.  I notice a lot of subjective or loose wording in articles relating to the arts and I guess it is necessary to provide an accurate portrayal of impressions that may not be black and white.  I'll defer to your experience in this.  Thanks again. Obotlig (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This plot summary is somewhat unusual in being built around characters instead of chronology but I am one who thinks this is in many cases a good method. The grouping of mysterious events was not my idea but I think it brings across the film effectively. You hit the nail on the head with the observation that obvious but unstated conclusions require some thought for their place in the summary. I am a believer that the summary should not go further than the film wherever possible. On the other hand, it is a summary, not an investigation of cinematic epistemology; we have to summarize. Where Eva is concerned, I feel that it would be easy to overemphasize her. Haneke consistently leaves his ends loose in a way that seems to resist allusions to cinematic boilerplate. Too much on Eva might imply that the story is built around their relationship. Anyway, thanks for your interest. This film presents some interesting questions that come out in the construction of the plot summary and I enjoy that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments about my recent "The White Ribbon" edits. Fact is - this movie is difficult to explain in only a few words, and unfair to explain with thousands of words!! I did ty to clean up some details and grammar, and tried to expand on the breadth and depth of the many "events" that happen in the movie... but the only real answer is to watch the movie itself. Good lluck to you, and others, who may try to further refine - it is a tough challenge. Thank you, again, for your comments.Jmg38 (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

White Ribbon
Thanks for all your attention on that article, which has been so valuable. May I suggest that we search for an alternative to the line about the decay in social life? I have two reasons. First, some material of significance is left out as it is, so if we want to take more space, I think we might consider something else. Secondly, I think it's an interpretation, not a summary of the plot. Maybe that's OR? Not that I disagree with your interpretation, but, given the sophistication of the work, I don't want to step on the response. Therefore, I think we could do better by asking what it is that tells us there is this decay. What is it in the film that makes you feel there is social decay? Perhaps those things could be included in the summary instead in some form. What do you think? (I will monitor this page for your response.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will leave this to your discretion and judgment. I have felt that the plot summary for this movie is too sterile compared to descriptions of other movies, books and works of art, where it seems that some degree of qualification and description is necessary. Works of art are meaningless without some interpretation. Is a Monet painting a collection of different colored dots? Obotlig (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought. I'm not sure if we differ on this. The White Ribbon is not like other films, but I often feel that other summaries are more explanatory than is necessary. Description, yes. I really was hoping you'd mention something that gave you this feeling of social decay from the film's world. Plot summaries tend to focus on the pictures at the expense of the sound track and there is a lot of emotion there -- even when there's no music. I am thinking about it but no rush. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at that portion of the movie when I get a chance. I'm not sure what sort of details would be appropriate. The expressions, tone and emotions of the actors would be considered subject to a high degree of interpretation even if someone with the intended cultural context would make no mistake about what the director and actors wanted to convey. I certainly can't claim to properly grasp the film or its context. Obotlig (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sayan
Feel free to move more of the content onto the Ostrovsky page. There's no reason to content-fork a separate page, when the only source for this page is Ostrovsky, and he is a primary source. Have a read over the policies if you can't see why a re-direct isn't suitable here. WP:Cfork Avaya1 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK does not indicate that the topic of "Sayan" should be included only in the biography article about Ostrovsky. In fact, that is patently incorrect since they are different topics. The article on Ostrovsky is not all-inclusive of any theories, statements, or books he might of published, some of which may or do merit their own articles due to the length of material and irrelevance to the biographical information on him, just as Einstein's article does not need to house all the information on his theories, or any other author's article needs to contain all the material about books she has written. At any rate, please discuss this change before forging ahead with it. You may be right or it may be an easy problem to resolve with appropriate discussion. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 21:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true that we could content fork separate articles for the things that Ostrovsky reports/claims, if that made to easier to organise Ostrovsy's content. However, the Ostrovsky article is extremely short and there's plenty of room to put it there. Secondly, unlike scientific theories, which have hundreds of secondary sources investigating them, Ostrovsky's reports are only based on one source. Giving them separate articles is already POV content forking and against WP:Undue and Fringe theories, since it implies that there is more than one source for them. This is the content forking policy we follow on every other Wikipedia article of this nature. Avaya1 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from raising the issue at WP:ANI I don't wish to have any more of a dispute over this. If you would like to discuss it in the article talk pages or at WP:RSN feel free to do so, or simply implement the changes you would like to see. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 21:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse!
Hey Obotlig! I saw your profile at the Teahouse :) I dig the Magnetic Fields, too! Happy editing... Sarah (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They have so many remarkably good songs, and the variation on "cultural norms" in terms of who the songs are addressed to is really nice. "You Me and the Moon", "Drive on, Driver", "The Dolls' Tea Party", "When You Were My Baby", "The Saddest Story Ever Told", "Lovers From The Moon", "Summer Lies", "Smoke Signals", "Living In An Abandoned Firehouse", "100,000 Fireflies", "All My Little Words", "I Can't Touch You Anymore". Could list more but those are all really good and well-performed, I think. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 18:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I wanted to stop by and say thanks for coming to the Teahouse and answering people's questions. It is really exciting to me when people jump in and there's a feeling of community. We have a couple of easy guidelines for the editors who help at the Teahouse. If you haven't seen it yet, this link to the "host lounge" will tell you about the mission behind the Hosts and what makes us different than other help spaces on Wikipedia - we describe things in a simple manner, like you have; we also say hi (welcome people when we answer their question). I look forward to your continued participation. Thank you for all you do! heather walls (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Thanks. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think I understand your question, more specific about which? I am just saying thank you and pointing to a little information about the Teahouse in case you haven't see it. :) heather walls (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I thought you wanted me to adhere to some sort of social guideline which I was misunderstanding. Sorry. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 02:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Obotlig! I believe Heather is referring to the social context of the Teahouse related to the host tips which discusses why we do what we do at the Teahouse a special way - welcome all new editors when they arrive (everyone likes to be welcomed with a friendly "hello!" at a new place) and so forth. Hope this helps :) Sarah (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand. Thanks for clarifying. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 22:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four
}


 * Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!


 * What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
 * ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
 * Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
 * 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
 * Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
 * New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.


 * Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
 * New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
 * Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
 * Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
 * Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
 * Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

Talk:Tel Aviv
i am sorry if i harm someone. i didn't mean to hert nobody, it is ok if i can go with this conversation or should i stop ? . פארוק (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's against WP:NOTFORUM to go into an extended debate about your personal opinions on the topic of unwanted immigrants to Tel Aviv. You should argue based on logical application of Wikipedia guidelines or what is reported by reliable sources. Maybe you can find a quote from a news source of someone prominent who agrees with what you want included in the article. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 21:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to tell that the residents of southern Tel Aviv are leaving their homes because they fear. פארוק (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Please see WP:RS and WP:SOAP. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 22:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * HOW MANY  PEOPLE  DID  ENGLAND + CHINA + AMERICA WAS DEPORTED  ?  ....    allways  israel  is  the  bad  guy ?!  .......  intresting . פארוק (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM? I'm not even familiar with the issue you are referring to. I'm not American, English, Chinese or Israeli. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 18:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Referencing
Thanks, Obotlig.

I had a look and see that I will have some new things to learn tomorrow! Sofiabrampton ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiabrampton (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hvitedame
Okay I'll bite. What's that image in your UBX? The Swedish Army? Slight Smile  21:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a picture of a statue representing a ghost that haunts a Norwegian fortress. I'm not sure there is a clear story of the origin but I would say that yet this is the Swedish army. Every Nordic woman who's been betrayed or murdered. From personal experience these seem to be pretty much the only sort of natural ghost, especially this particular type and circumstance. I noticed this same type at a castle in France where a woman had committed suicide by leaping from the top. Anyway I don't know if I'll get blocked for saying it but they are all alive again. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A statue of a ghost. Hvitedame translates to Belorus Woman, right?
 * The army question comes from a UBX on your Swedish page. I don't speak Swedish but it looks like you're saying you're in the Swedish Armed Forces but that must be wrong. I'm nosy. Slight  Smile  01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hvite dame means white lady. The userboxes are accurate although the babel boxes in particular may be a joke. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I confess to having looked at your user page after your comments on the "Virgin Birth" - and you do seem to be an interesting person !

DLMcN (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 


 * Thanks, that's a very nice ginger kitten. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed pic
Were you aware the picture you reinserted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=498038080] had just previously been discussed on the talkpage, leading to its removal? Reinserting it without participating in the discussion, on a sensitive article like this, will be seen as rather seriously disruptive. I strongly recommend either reverting yourself or offering a really good justification on talk fairly quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture meets the criteria of the RFC decision. As the comment says "picture is patently relevant to section and encyclopedic." I don't understand how an article can be sensitive, I don't think it has feelings. I find your tone threatening given the fact that you are an administrator, involved in this article, and there is no possible way to construe restoring a picture allowed by the RFC decision as "disruptive." You revert it if you want. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus on the article talk page seems to be that no new images should be added without prior discussion, which seems quite reasonable in this situation. The RfC outcome means that some images may be used, but not that any and all images must be used, so there is no automatic license to just add anything that meets your eye. Since objections had already been voiced on the talk page about this item, restoring it without joining the discussion is poor style if nothing else. – This said, let me just clarify that yes, I am acting here in my role as an uninvolved administrator. My previous edit to the article was minor and unrelated to any dispute, so it falls under WP:UNINVOLVED ("prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus may "seem to be" something but how it should seem that way to me I don't know. I looked at the discussion and it appeared to be about the edit summaries of reversions and the propriety of those reversions, not the whether the image itself was suitable or unsuitable. If some genuine consensus is obvious in that discussion or elsewhere on the page I apologize; it certainly was not clear to me. The article is not even on "1RR" status. WP:BOLD always applies doesn't it? I saw no discussion of why the picture should or should not be in the article. How do you figure that any involvement in this article or on its talk page can be construed as lack of involvement if the article is as a whole so patently "sensitive"? If it's that "sensitive", then any portion of it is "sensitive". Anyway I've taken it to the talk page. Thanks for the warning. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 17:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a similarity between your recent edits on this and on Anatolia. I think there's a gap in your basic understanding of WP processes especially issues such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD etc. This is a collaborative project and there's no scope for simply trying to force throgh what you happen to think is "right". The edit you reinstated in this case had been reverted twice already (doesn't matter what the reason is). That should tell you need to gain consensus on the talk page before going further. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Scope"? Point taken. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 18:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings
Your comments, both of them, were interesting. Could you please take a look at my comment and see if we can find some agreement on the issue? -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded with what I see as the biggest problem. I also see a lack of clear consensus and that we may need to explore the solutions in more detail, as well as made subsections to break up the discussion a bit. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 03:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Meetup/Portland/Wiknic Saturday June 23
Be there, or be unwikified!--Pharos (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Home on the range?
Yes, "home of" is clearly the fallback wording of someone who was writing too fast for an encyclopedia. If I read you correctly, we agree on that. Thanks! Student7 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember where exactly this came up (Anatolia?) but I'll take a look around. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 00:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Anatolia. I agree. This problem seems pervasive under region and city articles which almost all read like promotional material written by people who live there. It might be a good idea to have a project to aggressively reword all these articles with a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 00:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Disagreeing with you is not necessarily edit warring. Kindly refrain from assuming administration rights when you are not one and sign your posts when posting on my talk page. And what is your reason to suppose that "Is She Really Going Out With Him" is better known than, say, "It's Different For Girls" or "Breaking Us In Two?" Britmax (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or "Steppin' Out"... I was just repeating the statement in Joe Jackson (musician) which does seem to be reflected by continued airplay to this day. If this statement is so troublesome in the "Is She Really Going Out With Him" article perhaps it needs to be removed from his article as well. I did not think it was controversial and I wrongfully failed to assume good faith and perceived that you were camped on the article regulating its content for no apparent reason. I apologize for that. The pattern of continued reversion and discussion via edit summaries prompted the 3rr warning. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is that any phrase like this is too vague for an encyclopedia. "Well knownness" cannot be measured like sales or airplay; a track may be more or less known in one country or to one generation,for example. And apology accepted. Britmax (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks aren't cool
I've made every attempt to be thoughtful and reasonable in my comments on that AfD. Implying that I (or anyone else) is a troll for simply asking for more information isn't cool. -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Elitism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Quality


 * Selene (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Endymion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology for mistake edit summary
I realized that here I inadvertently used what appears to be the Swedish word tik in the edit summary. This was doubly mistaken because not only did I not mean to use a foreign language word but I did not understand what the word meant. I also had forgotten what correction I had made. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 17:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Lawrence
No idea what you were thinking here but asking innocuous questions and proving an answer with sources aren't BLP violations. -- Neil N   talk to me  06:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first "question" seems superfluous or trollish. The second conversation starts with an insulting insinuation, then launching into a WP:POV/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH tirade (what this editor thinks fairly common "combinations" in "Kentucky" are?) about patent falsehoods providing alleged genealogy -- which is apparently completely unproven with any genetic test; there is no reliable source for who her immediate or distant ancestors are -- seems ridiculous to me compared to the incessant whining "Jewish" persons (meaning editors with bio articles) put up about being labeled Jews without some kind of impossible proof. Jennifer Lawrence is in fact either Aryan or Nordic or something in between. The question was what "ancestry" as in race, the answer to which not being who claimed to be whose parents, etc., but what "race" she is factually, the evidence for which is never consistently applied on Wikipedia due mostly to varying interpretations of WP:RS. The responding editor synthesized an analysis not only of what factual partial nationality any of her immediate ancestors might have been (or used what could not be reliable sources) but of where their ancestors had in turn resided, implying something about Lawrence's genetic or ethnic background in fact. Again, there is only one correct answer. She's Aryan. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 14:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, to circumvent any circular or irresolvable discussions of whether I misunderstand, can't comprehend or apply Wikipedia rules or might be a dolt, verifiable means demonstrable to be true but I may be dangerously close to calling a spade a spade. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 14:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first question was made in good faith by a new editor in good standing so calling it trollish is probably inaccurate. You have to make a reach to call the second question "insulting" and it was answered by a very experienced editor. WP:AGF is a good policy to re-read. You can certainly point out flaws but I suggest you think twice about simply deleting posts like these. -- Neil N   talk to me  15:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I have here is not that there are logical flaws in Wikipedia policy (many people must notice that it's extremely circular, contradictory, illogical, poorly formulated and intended only to be thoroughly arbitrary) since there are "flaws" or circular reasoning in just about anything, but that in this case there seems to me to be such a ghastly difference between the truth, the question, and her claimed ancestors -- and that ethnic labels can be applied with inverse proportion to how manifestly true they are. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 16:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to beat a dead horse but I am wondering if this person might be part chimpanzee. I only ask because there is something about the shape of her mouth, jaw, cheeks, eyes, brow, eyebrows, nose, cranium, face, neck, the color of her hair and eyes, and the recessive traits demonstrated in her eyes, that makes me wonder if she might in fact be in some part descended from chimpanzees. It's a perfectly reasonable question? Obotlig ☣  interrogate 16:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not clear what race this, this, this, this, or this person could be. I heard they might be British or Irish or maybe from England? I wish I could get some WP:RS for the WP:VERIFIABILITY of this. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 16:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So many people, nowadays, are such complex mixtures [i.e., from many different sources] that it often does not make sense even to ask the question. In addition, one's genetic composition does not always show in the face. Nevertheless, it does involve an intriguing topic ... and occasionally, certain interesting generalizations are possible. --DLMcN (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting and difficult question. The use of the labels is extremely inconsistent on Wikipedia, in common usage and in academia. Moreover the provenance of genealogies seems to go unquestioned by people especially regarding paternal lineage. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 17:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Obotlig. Please go take a look at WP:OVERLINK. You seem to be a master of this particular form of communication on Wikipedia, and my impression is that you are doing it to communicate in a subtly arrogant or obfuscating fashion. While a couple of links in a reply could provide insight, your approach is just a little over the top. It would be better if simply comunicate plainly and without linking every other word to some unrelated synonym-ish word. At present it appears to be somewhat disruptive to open dialog and is not helpful to the goals of this Talk page. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I will refrain from doing that in the future. It was an attempt to save some words and not be over(t)ly sarcastic. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 18:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hi! you responded to my request to delete ""People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love" from Love. Unfortunately I am unable to delete this myself, as the page is edit protected. I would be grateful if you would do so.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!


 * Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
 * More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
 * Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
 * New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
 * Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
 * Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
 * Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
 * Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
 * New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
 * Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit-thon: Saturday, February 9, 2013
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
 * We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.


 * We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. You can add it here.  You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.


 * Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!


 * You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)


It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
 * -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

2013 Portland Wiknic!
Hope you are able to attend! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Portland 2013!
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon
Oh I'm sorry I missed this. Maybe next year! Obotlig ☣ interrogate 09:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow switching between variant Latin and Runic spellings on the Anglisc Wikipedia!
That is so cool, check out the Anglisc (Old English) Wikipedia! Flip between runes and Latin letters with a click? See those little options at the top of each page? That's awesome! I'll refrain from my favorite rune words and acronyms since we're on, er, a different language encyclopedia. Aw heck, why not... Get Unicode. ᛃᚨ ᚨᛚᛊᚲᚨᚱ ᚲᚹᛁᚾᚾᛟᚱ! Obotlig ☣ interrogate 16:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ans van Dijk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Security Service. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)
 You are invited!


 * Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Map of status of women
Hi Obotlig. "Status of Women by country in 2011 according to study by Lauren Streib published in 20 September 2011 Newsweek. Data excerpted from Best and Worst Countries for Women" refers. The different colours each has a value expressed in figures, yet, I don't how you can express "status" as a number. What does it mean to have — for example — a status of "83.66"? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Art+Feminism events in Oregon
You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up: About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.
 * Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
 * Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism @ Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (March 18, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon @ PNCA Library (April 29, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27
You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA
On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)
On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)
On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (April 13, University of Oregon)
On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19
Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8
To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9
The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Oregon Jewish Museum, Thursday, March 7
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

"Sayan (Mossad)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sayan (Mossad). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BlueD954 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

You're Invited! Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia
On, Friday, February 25, 2022, Oregon State University will be hosting an online editathon focused on Black history of the Pacific Northwest. You can learn more here and/or register here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022
You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)