User talk:Peteforsyth/Archive 9

Your statement at requests for arbitration
Hi Pete, could you please shorten your statement to no more than 500 words (which is the limit for everyone) as soon as possible. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll shorten it later today. Thanks for the note . -Pete (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I shortened it per your request. Can you tell me, will all participants receive a request like this? As of now, at least two others have statements over 900 words, but have not received a request on their user talk page to shorten their comments. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. At the moment we're just responding to requests from Arbs if they want a statement to be shortened. If I get some time, I'll have a look through the request and work out who is over the limit. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, they don't dare to shorten the 3x bigger post by the Vice President of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation, posting "on behalf of WMF". JMP EAX (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 7, June-July 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
 * TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
 * Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
 * Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings
Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version will be posted after 11 August; you are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation issue of the open letter
The problem is that the one initially in charge of the Chinese translation of the open letter "amended" some content not really present in the original letter like making analogy between Superprotect and internet censorship in China which many Chinese Wikipedians don't find this recreation accurate and pleasing. The mistranslation has been removed[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer/zh&diff=next&oldid=9611455], but I think it does somehow damage the dignity of your motion among the zh.wp community because not all of our users find either the MV or SP too revolting. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification . It's good to know; I'm not sure if there's anything I can do to help. Let me know if there is. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check out my user talk page
I've posted an important statement there and its aimed very much at you on one key element: the plea to please relax a notch or two. I know you think you are helping by going around agitating for an open letter but I don't agree - and there is no rush. I'd like you to dial back the rhetoric because it looks from where I sit very much a case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Let's chill out and remember what we are here for - all of us - and it isn't to engage in useless internal bickering.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a short remark, Jimbo. When you have read the Letter so you surelly made the experience, that a very great majority of the signees are users, editing here since 2004, 2005 or 2006 (or before). This is a point that you - and the Foundation - should think about. Regards -jkb- (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) (2004)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by that: This case has been suspended for sixty days and to be subsequently closed. In the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either at the request of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA. The motion notes the following:

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia while an arbitration case was pending and may only regain administrative rights on their personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship. This does not prevent them from holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account.
 * From 15 September 2014, the WMF will require require staff to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts respectively, with work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
 * The WMF aims to improve working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

Greetings from ChristineBushMV
Hi Pete. I just wanted to stop by and say hello by way of letting you know that I'm starting to re-engage here after a period of coming to terms with some things, much as you described others having done. Thanks for your encouragement. I am seeing some good changes on WP. You can see what else I'm up to on my user page. (Don't miss the Research Tools project. I envision it as a potential resources for newcomers.)

I also wanted to let you know I'm taking the "Open Knowledge" course this fall through Stanford. This might entail some more work on the OER article if that would be welcome? I've continued research into this area ever since your course.

I am also serving a one-year term as Author Representative on the Citizendium Council and am enjoying what I suspect is a rare glimpse into both encyclopedia communities simultaneously.

It is too funny to see your thread above re: Media Viewer. I just responded to someone about that in the last 48 hours...and as I go to get a link to it to share with you, there's a Thank You---from you! You're welcome. ChristineBushMV (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality check, please
Hi, Pete. I know you're busy. At your convenience, could look into this ?

I don't understand the explanation and would really appreciate your insight into what's going on here. You are allowed to contribute media to Wikimedia Commons. You are allowed to include that contribution in an article. But if you provide information about the methodology used to create that contribution (which, in this case, is based on the article in which it is included), it is not reliable? This is like telling your photographer friend that he isn't allowed to include a reference regarding the aperture setting for a photo because it is "original research." Is this some bizarre logic trap, or a misapplication of WP guidelines to Wikimedia Commons, or...? ChristineBushMV (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Pete. I've revised the methodological description a bit and moved it here. I think this is how the framework must want to encourage such documentation. (WP's loss is the Commons' gain.) ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, good to hear from you, and sorry for the slow response. I've taken a quick look at this; I think you generally have the right position, but could maybe go about advocating for it a bit more effectively. Your map is a pretty straightforward presentation of factual information, so it's not like it is heavily interpretive. Consider pointing out how the data that informs the map you created is cited to reliable sources. Maybe ask at WP:MAPS to see if anybody there has encountered similar issues, and see how they were resolved. I don't know whether the person objecting to its inclusion has a lot of experience with WP sourcing of this kind of thing or not, but I do tend to agree with you that a map like this is a pretty straightforward improvement to the article. I'd say, keep going -- I think you can make the case! -Pete (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. I appreciate these suggestions. I'm satisfied keeping metadata with its artifact in the Commons going forward. I find the opportunity costs of trying to contribute to WP are high enough without looking for more. ChristineBushMV (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC Case
Hey Pete, I have to say I'm a bit mystified that you cited the MP4 RfC as an example of how the "WMF has lost touch with the values and processes that have driven Wikipedia's growth." IMO, that RfC was a useful request for feedback from the community on a complicated issue. The final result was 205 people in support of allowing MP4 and 309 people in opposition with plenty of good arguments on both sides. Personally, I think it was a good discussion to instigate regardless of the outcome. Would you have preferred that the WMF take a different course in investigating the issue? Kaldari (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bringing this up. (I don't recall exactly what discussion this is flowing from, so if you have a link that might be nice.)
 * There's a lot of detail and nuance in this issue, so I can't give you a full response right now -- but I'd be happy to sit down and talk it over some time, or have a "WikiIsSlow" type discussion here. But for now, let me just list a few observations, and a "rough draft" reply to your general question:
 * First, I acknowledge that good arguments were made in favor of the change, both by WMF staff and by non-staff; I would not contend that the RfC was wholly without merit.
 * Making a broad call for participation -- creating a sense of urgency by attaching an intention to make a change -- is a very costly thing to do, and should be done only when there is very good reason to do so.
 * I count the votes differently; I would say 145 out of 514 participants, or 28%, supported the (radical) idea that WMF proposed (and heavily advocated).
 * I'm not sure what WMF would have considered sufficient consensus for moving forward with MP4, but I fear that it might have been 50%, which seems to have been considered sufficient in the SOPA inquiry. But 50% is not a consensus, it's a majority vote -- and majority votes are not how we typically run things here. Even in the democratic process of the USA, in which majority vote is the norm, changing foundational principles -- like the US Constitution -- requires much more than a majority vote, and in my opinion, for good reason. I would think something closer to 80% would be more sensible as a threshold for making a change like this -- and there's a pretty huge gap between 28% and 80%.
 * I consider the change radical because Wikipedia and Wikimedia have such strong roots in the free culture movement, in which opposition to proprietary formats is strong.
 * The presentation of the issue was an advocacy piece, as were the many emails to public mailing lists and on-wiki notifications that went out from WMF staff. As any Wikipedian knows, there is an art to removing (or at least minimizing) bias in the presentation of an issue; but that approach seems to have been absent in the composition of this proposal. This is partly a communications issue -- it would have been better to thoroughly consider the points against the proposal, in the main presentation of the issue.
 * At a deeper level, this is a planning and resource allocation issue. If the WMF is going to make a radical proposal, it should do more background work ahead of time, exploring the pros and cons. The issue should be very thoroughly understood by those making the proposal, and the WMF should (ideally) have a pretty good ability to predict if there is likely to be (roughly) a 28% support or 80% support. Whatever the proper threshold is determined to be -- if the resulting vote is, say, 5% short of that, fine, nobody's time has been wasted -- it was clearly an issue worth deliberating. But if the result is 52% short, in my view, that is an indication that a broad call for discussion, and an imminent major decision, probably shouldn't have happened to begin with. Perhaps there were not a lot of WMF resources spent on this failed proposal; but the volunteer time that went into it is substantial, and should be part of the calculation.
 * Context is important; if we were in a context of healthy meta communication, I think proposing a radical change like this would be less of a problem. But as things are, I believe WMF should be working hard to build trust and collegiality, and that making any major proposal that falls short of success tends to work against that goal.
 * Like many Wikimedians, I prefer to use the platform, over designing the platform. One of the outcomes of a debate like this, which I think might not be adequately considered/measured, is that many people like me have felt compelled, for one reason or another, to spend their time and energy on something that we're not mainly here to do.
 * As a general answer, I think WMF should have taken the time to explore the issue much more thoroughly prior to deciding whether or not to make a proposal, let alone deciding what proposal to make or how to message it. I don't presume to say exactly what that exploration should have looked like, but if the expertise to do something like that doesn't exist within WMF, it would be worthwhile to hire consultants to help design it. In this case, I think the clear conclusion would have been that the specific proposal put forward was inadequate. Given the outcome of the vote, and the resulting discussions (e.g., see here: commons:Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video/Analysis of responses), I think it would have been great to see a proposal centered on the "contributions only" concept. But now, I think everybody is tired of debating it, so even if it would have been reasonable to structure the initial discussion like that, I don't think it's worthwhile to start a new one, which might be widely perceived as hauling the dead horse out for some more flogging. I think the core outcome of this was bitterness and division, and we don't need more of that. I would like to see WMF doing the research to inform really good ideas that lots of people can get behind, to rebuild and reinforce the notion that we are all in this together. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't want to rehash the arguments here, but personally, I didn't see it as a very radical proposal (although I also didn't support it). Obviously the Foundation wants to support free formats, but it also wants to make multimedia a viable part of the projects (as this directly relates to the mission of the organization). If the community was willing to compromise on utilizing MP4, there wouldn't be much sense investing scarce resources in other solutions. So yes, it was a waste of time, but it's purpose was to prevent wasting more time and money in the long run. Now that the WMF knows where the community stands on the issue, they can proceed with other solutions and know that more expensive development efforts are justified. Turning on MP4 support would have cost approximately nothing, while developing scalable behind-the-scenes transcoding solutions might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The amount of time "wasted" by the community in discussion is trivial in comparison. Kaldari (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014 by CFCF sign up for monthly delivery 

Feature – Ebola articles
During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!
 * Just some of our over 60 translations:


 * Xhosa
 * Northern Sotho
 * Zulu
 * Tsonga
 * Venda
 * Hausa
 * Igbo
 * Yoruba
 * Kinyarwanda
 * Swahili
 * Tigrinya

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page! We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed! Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * New roles and guides!
 * New sign up page!
 * Style guides for translations
 * Some more stats
 * In July, 18 full article translations went live ( WP:RTT ), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live ( WP:RTTS )!
 * We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! ( Find them here old sign up page )
 * We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
 * New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!
 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC
You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 8, August-September2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
 * Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
 * New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
 * Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
 * English signup
 * Deutsch signup
 * Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
 * Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
 * British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
 * Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
 *  Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
 * JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Thanks!
Thanks for updating the cannabis/Oregon articles recently! Proponents certainly ran a much stronger campaign than they did a couple years ago. By the way, I was wondering if you wanted to offer any feedback here. Also, I've started a Portland neighborhoods project, so if you see a familiar neighborhood that needs a category to add to related articles, feel free! Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oregon gubernatorial election, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third party. 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) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Nathan Teal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Benson. 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) 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet another cleaner
Hi Pete. Even though you wrote that Yet Another Cleaner "appears to be a good candidate for deletion", Neil N  has been taking your name (in vain?) as an authority on criteria for sources. It would therefore be helpful if you would weigh in again at the article's talk page on the appropriate action. In particular is there a sufficiently clear cut case as to whether or not to bother AFD, who may well have plenty of harder disputes to resolve? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Diane Simmons (author)
Hey Pete, see what links here and the talk page, I think you need to disambiguate her, unless you think she should be the primary topic? More people have probably heard of the character, I imagine... Valfontis (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My inclination is, I don't think an apparently non-notable fictional character should distract from an actual person who does pass the notability threshold. I would think that anybody seeking the Family Guy character would probably put the words "Family Guy" into the search string, and so they wouldn't have any trouble finding the list anyway. If you want to change the way it's set up though, I won't interfere! -Pete (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I already cleaned it up. See my contribs. You owe me a beer. Valfontis (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Template for State Senate membership templates
Template:Template for State Senate membership templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Books and Bytes - Issue 9
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 9, November-December 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
 * Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Thanks
... for your many edits the past few days! :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

fyi
Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Got Boon?
Does that fancy old book of yours have a pic of John D. Boon? I found a couple images online and since he's an ODG I'm sure they're public domain but it would be nice to have something with provenance. Valfontis (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent user rights changes
Hi Pete, I noticed you recently added the "autochecked" userright to certain users. Please note that "autochecked" has no rights that (auto)confirmed doesn't give, so an administrator should soon remove the right. Just wanted to give you a heads-up, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fern Hobbs
Hi, Peteforsyth, I noticed your revert; Sorry, my mistake cause I forgot to mention it in the edit summery. When adding images of people, they should face the text wherever possible, hence my edit. btw, take a look at this page, it looks weird to me. Lotje (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it -- feel free to reinstate your edit (it looked like a mistake to me; no problem with moving the photo if it's intentional). -Pete (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 11, March-April 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
 * Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

E-mail

 * I'm game! Replied to your e-mail form. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically this whole thing started when I did a visit to Colonial Williamsburg and saw the print shop. I then started writing up articles pertaining to colonial printers, especially related to Benjamin Franklin and Williamsburg. See video about colonial printers under my picture on my User Page. One thing lead to another and I was then writing up an article on Louis Timothee = husband to Elizabeth. When Louis died then Elizabeth took over and was mentored by Benjamin Franklin. I then expanded your stub by 50 times and made it a DYK. I work out articles in a sandbox draft first and is the reason for the sudden 50 X expansion. It really was worked on for weeks in the background and then made as one big improvement to make sure it became a DYK. My secret to making DYKs is that I work them out beforehand in a sandbox draft. BTW, my wife was born in the Netherlands. She immigrated to America in 1956.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. I got your email -- but my timing was poor, I have been very busy with family matters in the last week or so. I would love to write a short blog post about this, and will probably have a couple followup questions. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, anytime. I'll be glad to answer any questions - as you can see by my DYKs I am pretty active on Wikipedia. Read over this newspaper article for additional information: Front page and part 2 --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Call for Volunteers

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
 * Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
 * Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
 * Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
 * Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)  Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Sunshine Sachs
Just wondering what's going on with the temp change. Feel free to email me if you prefer. — Brianhe (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 12, May-June 2015 by, , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
 * Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
 * American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 13, August-September 2015 by, , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
 * Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
 * Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Thank you...
Thank you for restoring the external link for Beatrice Morrow Cannady. Quite frankly, I was devastated to see most of my links being reverted. Many excellent ones about Oregon. Sigh... Anyway, thanks for making a positive difference here!Guanaco55 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, that was certainly a valuable link. I have not really looked at your other links. Are you aware that there is concern that your addition of PBS links might result from a conflict of interest? It would help the situation a good deal if you could comment on that. You could leave a note there or continue to discuss here if you prefer. -Pete (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pete. I did respond on GermanJoe's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GermanJoe) but I don't think it did any good.  I think I may be done as an editor...Guanaco55 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dash script
I've done it again. Wouldn't it be easier to install the script yourself, if you want to write professionally? Tony  (talk)  21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated, snark or no snark. (I've been writing professionally for about 18 years, but yes, this script does look useful. I will gladly install it when I'm not in the midst of publishing this piece.) -Pete (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks, . This particular barnstar means a great deal to me. I must say, none of it would have been possible without many generous contributions by numerous Wikimedians and non-Wikimedians. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year


Wishing you the very best in 2016. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and the same to you! Nice to hear from you, it's been too long. -Pete (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Pete,

I wanted to thank you for assembling a diverse group of four voices looking at Wikipedia from interesting insider/outsider perspectives. You conducted the discussion like a polished talk show host (forgive the comparison), and it was a pleasure to see and hear the entire presentation from the front row. Thanks for all your facilitation and coordination. Well done! <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

XBIZ Award for Girl/Girl Performer of the Year
I'm really confused as to why this article was deleted at all, let alone speedily deleted. Was it blanked beforehand or something? (In addition, I, as the creator, was never notified that it was up for deletion.) <span style="color:;">  <span style="color:;"> 04:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have tagged and notified before deleting, my apologies. I'm happy to put the article in user space if that's helpful. However, in its present state it is far outside Wikipedia's standards:
 * It has no statement that would indicate it is a significant award
 * It's existed for about a year, with a number of edits, which does not suggest to me that there is a statement of significance that you didn't have time to include
 * Every one of its 8 or 9 references were to the XBIZ web site itself, which is in no way "independent" (as called for in WP:RS), and I'm not certain about "reliable" (for these purposes) either. -Pete (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please return it to userspace for now, but...WP:PRIMARY states to use primary sources with care; it doesn't outright prohibit them. And I'm also going to have to call WP:OSE here. What about, for example, AVN Award for Best New Starlet (which I didn't create, btw), or anything else from Category:AVN Awards? And neither article comes close to qualifying under CSD guidelines&mdash;especially A7, which you cited. <span style="color:;">  <span style="color:;"> 20:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I userfied at User:Erpert/XBIZ. I took a look at a couple of the articles in the category you mention, and they look to have the same issue. Since there are a number of similar articles, probably the best thing is WP:AFD to get a clear consensus about these articles. -Pete (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I reinstated the article with a few independent sources. <span style="color:;">  <span style="color:;"> 10:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. The LA Times article looks to me like it would contribute to the notability of the awards ceremony overall, but not to the individual awards. I'll put together something for AFD soon so we can get some other perspectives. -Pete (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You might not be familiar with the discussions with regard to WP:PORNBIO, but actors winning such individual awards are exactly what pass for notability. The articles in question really aren't much different than, say, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. <span style="color:;">  <span style="color:;"> 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

From the Recruiter's desk @ The Signpost
Hi Pete. With Wikipedia15 behind us, I'm reaching out to you in another capacity, as the recruiter for The Signpost. Would you be interested in writing for the SP, specifically the Arb Report? While this wouldn't be a weekly commitment, it would be a semi-regular. Think it over? If you have questions, please ping me, plus Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am honored by the request. I enjoy writing for the Signpost from time to time, and I think its coverage of ArbCom proceedings is important. However, I'm far from expert on ArbCom; I've never served, or even thought seriously about serving, on ArbCom, and I've only read a few cases thoroughly. I don't think this is something I could take on in good conscience; it's way too important to pay close attention to the topic, and I just don't have the bandwidth to do the requisite research on an ongoing basis.
 * One way perhaps I could help, would be if you have somebody who wanted to do it, but wanted an occasional sounding-board or advisor. I could probably work with somebody to mentor them in the role, or otherwise lend a hand from time to time. -Pete (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Nudge
Which email? If you sent it to my agora address, I don't check that as much as the one linked on my Wikipedia page. (I don't think I've looked at it in a week or two...)

If it's about a meetup, I'll see if my wife can spare me. -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha! Ok, I think agora is the only address I had for you. Sending the info now. Hope it's not too late! -Pete (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators

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) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Thanks very much for your kind comments about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, in your deletion closing statement at Articles for deletion/The Signpost (Wikipedia).

Much appreciated,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome -- but really, thank you, for making it an easy decision through your own, more substantial, work. -Pete (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pete, you are very kind, I really appreciate your words !!! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)