User talk:Stephenbharrison

Talkback
epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

NYT
Nice piece in the Times yesterday! Those guys certainly deserve some recognition for their dedication, and I'm glad to see one of our humble WikiProjects get some press, too. :)

There is a Wikimedia chapter in New York City, and I'd like to invite you to come to a meeting/event if you're in the area and so inclined. We have regular events like edit-a-thons, partner with a variety of educational/cultural institutions, and have monthly "WikiWednesday" meetings in Manhattan. The next one is 4/25 (information about it here). They're open to everyone and are attended by experienced Wikipedians, brand new users, open culture enthusiasts, librarians, educators, journalists, and all sorts of other people interested to learn more or get more involved with Wikimedia projects. There will be pizza and it takes place in an experimental video game nonprofit/gallery. If you can't make that one, you can always check back at Meetup/NYC for upcoming events.

Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I would be VERY interested in this, but I'm actually based in Dallas and just flew up to investigate for the one subway article. Maybe I can schedule another research trip up for another article, though? I find these communities fascinating, and think they make very positive stories, too. Best, Stephenbharrison (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well here is the meetup page for the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Since there's no "chapter" there, there aren't going to be quite as many events. It looks like there are a few this month, although I don't know if there's a regular meetup (March sees a greater than average number of events everywhere due to Art+Feminism).
 * I agree that the communities are fascinating. Can I ask how you first came to take a peek behind the scenes on Wikipedia?
 * For me, back in 2006 I started looking at Wikipedia as an academic curiosity. As soon I understood the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" idea, I just had to dig into the behind the scenes processes to figure out how that could possibly work at all. The rules the community wrote and lives by, the processes of creation and deletion, the subcommunities that focus on a particular topic or particular type of task, the debates over procedural minutiae, the dramatic battles over contentious subjects, etc. Anyway, almost 12 years later and Wikipedia went from curiosity to something that runs through my personal, academic, and professional lives. :)
 * I hope you get to attend an event. They can be a lot of fun, and often not what people expect (for better or worse). If you find yourself in NY and want to know what's going on in the local wikiworld, give me a ping or check that page linked above. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I first started looking behind the scenes of Wikipedia because I was working on a column for the Outline called "Wackipedia." The idea was to review Wiki articles for accuracy, completeness, and inanity. Although the quality varies widely, I realized fairly quickly that the more interesting story was the behind the scenes discussions and personalities. I'm interested in doing more feature pieces about the people behind Wikipedia, and would love more ideas about where to look if you have them. I'd also like to write about more female Wikipedia editors, and the interesting work they are doing. And of course, the contenious battles for certain subjects are fun to cover as well. Stephenbharrison (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken formatting on recent edits
Hi, I'm not quite sure what's going in here, but I've just removed two of your recent edits for the same formatting issues. Please see Arconic and Stanley Black & Decker. In both cases, two separate employee numbers were mentioned, the citation had broken formatting, and the url had nothing to do with the topic. I don't know if this is the result of an automated process of some sort, or a copy and paste error, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and at Estée Lauder Companies and First Data, which I just checked randomly, you submitted a url in template form, which doesn't work. The latter also has a duplicate named ref error. I'll fix it, but I need to ask you to please use the preview function to check your work before you submit it - whether there's a glitch going on with the aforementioned error or not, you're creating a lot of cleanup work for others here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. As you mentioned, the link might not be populating automatically as it usually does. I will go back in and check for this with my recent edits. I also have some questions with adding sources to these company info boxes. It's difficult to cite information within the info boxes, and I think that's probably why so many of these company info boxes do not use sources at all. Thank you Stephenbharrison (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for replying. I'm noticing that the citations you add within the body of an article's text don't have any problems, but the ones you add to the infobox always do (in the handful of edits I just took a look at). This is the sort of thing I keep seeing with your employee number updates in infoboxes: http://fortune.com/fortune500/l-brands/ . That's in contrast to very similar info from forbes.com, which you're citing in the proper format within articles. I don't quite understand why this is happening, or what you mean by it being difficult... the citations work the same way in either location. However you're adding citations to the body of an article, can you just do the same thing when editing an infobox? Jessicapierce (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the difficulty is just that the info box templates do not have a way to automatically generate the citation (that I am seeing). Also quite a few of these companies are using different types of info boxes -- for example, the number of employees field does not appear as an option in all of them, e.g. CSX Transportation. Some companies have an info box with footnotes/references embedded in the actual info box, e.g. Xcel Energy. It might just be that I need practice using the source editor more than the visual editor! Stephenbharrison (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hanesbrands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zorba ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hanesbrands check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hanesbrands?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you (and your programmers) for catching this. I've now fixed the link to the disambiguation page. Stephenbharrison (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Journalist here
Hi Stephen. I'm genuinely sorry, as Wikipedia's more divisive pages can be a fascinating subject to talk about, but I would prefer not to be part of an article on one. The internet can be a rather unpredictable place and you just never know whose unwanted attention you'll get if you're featured in a well-read publication. I have enough problems already. ;) But good luck, I suspect it's a subject your editor and readers will be interested in! Felice Enellen (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I completely understand. I just wanted to ensure that I was reporting on diverse perspectives on the article. Thanks again. Stephenbharrison (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Journalist here
Hi, I'd be more than happy to cooperate with you on your said article. Be sure to contact me at my e-mail address: michael__frank@outlook.com Looking forward to hearing from you! Linguaddict (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sent you an email. Thanks much. Stephenbharrison (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: New WikiProject for A Cappella-related articles
Hi there! I saw some of your good work on the article for The Chordials, so I thought I'd reach out! I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella (ranging from the Pentatonix to collegiate a cappella groups like The Chordials, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off) please check out the proposal and share your feedback!

Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.

If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like that one), please consider joining! If it was also just a passing thing, no worries—completely understood!


 * —Shrinkydinks (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Email received
Stephen, I received your emails. I wish you luck on your article, but I'd rather stay away from any RL media activity. For me, editing Wikipedia is a hobby to keep my mind busy and I'd like to keep it that way. Felice Enellen said it pretty well above.

FWIW, that article/topic that you're interested in could be approaching those mentioned in WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC. Respectfully, Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One other thing: If/when you do publish that article, could you drop me a pointer on my talk page or via email? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks very much for letting me know. And if you'd like to be on the email distribution, I have a sign up on my personal site: stephenharrison.com Stephenbharrison (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Journalism? Interesting!
Hi, my name is Rebestalic

I've seen that something you sent me, thank you for your interest! I think you're fully accurate with your paragraphs, although I personally would take the sprawling Indian population into account. People seem to like it when people die. Well, let's say that differently 😂 Death seems to attract viewership, but... why? Hey, perhaps you could team up with a psychologist and do some investigative thing on it! Oh dear, actually not, I'm letting myself get ahead of reality

psst also, it's Ginsburg with the S, not Ginburg

I reckon 'a report compiled weekly by Wikipedia volunteers' is an accurate enough description of what the Top 25 is, although I would personally make mention that the subject matter only covers activities on English Wikipedia, just to make things clear to idiots like me

I hope that helped, and I wish you luck with your assignment! Is it an assignment hmm Rebestalic [leave a message....]  08:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

US housing edit-a-thon
Thank you for signing up for today's online US housing edit-a-thon! Looking forward to your contributions. Please drop me a line if you have any questions. Cheers, -- M2545 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating! Summary of our collective effort during the event is here. All best, -- M2545 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Got your email
Got your email. I am right in the middle of something so I might not be able to respond before tomorrow morning. I am reading the material you linked to in your email. Unless I find something dodgy there my answer will almost certainly be "yes". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! I can send the questions to you by email or here on WP, whichever you prefer. Stephenbharrison (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Email works best for me.
 * For anyone wondering, I can confirm that the email address Stephen used to contact me matches the one at [ https://www.stephenharrison.com/ ], so I am confident that this is not an impersonator. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For those following along at home (And no doubt, in the editorial offices of The Daily Mail) we had a nice email conversation, which I hope will help him. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You are a controversial writer
Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging for me. Stephenbharrison (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question:
 * Google translate of https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncentracijski_logor_Jasenovac says
 * "The Jasenovac concentration camp or Jasenovac concentration camp was the largest concentration camp and extermination camp in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during the Second World War. The camp was created as a result of the genocidal policy against Jews, Serbs and Roma [1] in the Independent State of Croatia, which was proclaimed by the Ustasha Homeland Organization on April 10, 1941, under the auspices and direct influence of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy."
 * but https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-human-language-wikifunctions.html says
 * "For instance, Jasenovac was a concentration and extermination camp during World War II, which is described in detail on English Wikipedia. Hebrew Wikipedia, and other language versions. But according to Croatian Wikipedia, Jasenovac was merely a labor camp."
 * The slate article references https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium.HIGHLIGHT.MAGAZINE-these-nationalists-didn-t-like-what-they-read-online-about-wwii-so-they-rewrote-it-1.10084302 but I cannot read it because it is behind a paywall. Is there a version that is available online?
 * This was covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Opinion
 * The page at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Croatian_WP_Disinformation_Assessment_-_Final_Report_EN.pdf says "Croatian article - in various versions that were online between 2007 and December 2020 - presented a grossly distorted picture of the notorious extermination camp" and "The article’s leading paragraph, posted in August 2018, dropped any reference to “death camp” and described Jasenovac as “the largest collection and labour camp in the NDH, and later in SFR Yugoslavia”39 – furthering baseless revisionist claim that the camp had been used by Yugoslav authorities."
 * I appears to me that you got the facts right but made an error by implying that the current article says that Jasenovac was merely a labor camp. I think a followup on when the denialist claims were inserted and how long it took the Croation Wikipedia to get it right would be an interesting read. How quickly are such errors removed? Dalek Supreme X (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your Bobby Crimo article
Hi Stephenbharrison. I read the article you published today, and I have to object to how you've framed Crimo's attempts to write an article about himself, especially the final paragraph. My read of that paragraph is that you think (or want your readers to think) that those efforts are a symptom of major narcissism, or perhaps some kind of personality disorder. To be blunt, that is a swing and a complete miss. I can't count the number of times I've deleted some "up-and-coming young artist," "social media influencer," or "entrepreneur"'s blatantly self-promotional page (and 2dgirl's deleted page is no different from any of those). Some folks take the hint the first time their creation is deleted, some keep at it and get blocked, a few keep on even after getting blocked. Few of these people are doing it because they do[n’t] recognize "objective" rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves. They are doing it because they don't know those rules and have heard that getting a Wikipedia page is a big deal and it will get them noticed, misunderstanding the relationship between "fame" and "having a Wikipedia article". It's social media taken up a notch. It's a little narcissistic, sure, but I would say it probably stems from people growing up and living in a world dominated by social media. Suggesting there is any sort of correlation between "wrote a promotional Wikipedia autobiography" and "mass murderer" is, at best, a wild exaggeration. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi GeneralNotability. Thanks for your note and for reading the piece. It sounds like you took issue more with the last paragraph than the rest of the reporting, so I will focus on that. Of course, there are lots of ambitious young people who try to make themselves a Wikipedia page. But this is still narcissistic, no? Even in your written comments you call it a "little narcissistic," so I don't see how that characterization can possibly be a "swing and a complete miss." Even in your expressed mode of thinking, it's just a matter of degree. I did not claim in that paragraph that this person had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The language there is descriptive of the behavior itself, not a clinical diagnosis or a key predictive factor. I also made your same point about people making their own pages for social boost reasons (like prestige and search engine optimization) earlier in the piece, and I agree that it's related to living in a world dominated by social media.
 * The second point, indicated 2) in that paragraph, is about nihilism. A total nihilist would not feel obligated to follow rules, whether those are rules against violence or the rules of an internet encyclopedia. I see elements of nihilism in both this person's interactions with Wikipedia and in the nihilist political memes that they were known to post on their Discord channel. My overall point, as I mentioned in that paragraph and a few other places in the piece, is that this person's online history with Wikipedia and Fandom is part of the story in the same way that other sources are covering this person's history with YouTube, Discord, Spotify, Instagram, and other sites. I won't be online this evening but let me know if you'd like to further discuss tomorrow. Stephenbharrison (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of your piece does advance the idea But not the last paragraph. That is armchair something that fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia to advance a point. This point driven writing is something which I can't remember you having done before or at least to the extent that you've done it, you've marshaled actual evidence to support it. It really feels, once you learned of this account, that you started with the idea of the last paragraph in mind and decided to end there regardless of what the actual evidence showed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right that ~95% of the piece is reporting and the last paragraph, something like ~5%, is more in the nature of an opinion or an interpretation. You don't have to agree with that interpretation but I think that it's reasonable. Right now I am getting a ton of emails in my inbox from people who agree and some who disagree with the end--that's fine. I wrote that paragraph by going through the piece and picking out two key themes, hence the 1) and 2) in the paragraph. If you read the piece and notate themes 1) and 2) wherever you see them, that might give me a semblance of what it felt like to arrive at (not start with) that conclusion.
 * N.B. My favorite email responses and comments are people saying that I must "hate" Wikipedia or its editors. Like, have you read anything I wrote on the subject? Stephenbharrison (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can have whatever opinion you want. I don't agree with all of your opinions but I've never challenged them before. What's different is you deciding to base your opinion on facts not in play. Is it fair to say that all of these are people who don't ? I am going to say emphatically not. Those aren't even all the people who create autobiographies those are just the people who an edit filter catches - 2dgirl is not in that list. Either you didn't understand how common it is to create a Wikipedia autobiography, even when you don't qualify, or you did and decided it didn't matter. Either way it led you to a conclusion that feels off and unfair to dozens of people each day to have them labeled in the same way you're labeling a mass murderer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone falls within that group, e.g. someone who has tried to make their own Wikipedia article and feels offended by the last paragraph of my Slate article, please have them email me or write on here. Happy to talk to them. See also my point to Nosebagbear about how the average person on the street might think differently about this self-promotion than a wiki-insider who sees it regularly. Stephenbharrison (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also take exception to the implication that repeatedly trying to create a Wikipedia article about yourself -- even breaking Wikipedia's rules in those attempts -- are in any way indicative of narcissism or nihilism. Self-promotion is as common as dirt and has been since our paleolithic ancestors struggled to increase their status in the group. And breaking the rules of a website is also pretty much bog standard behavior. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The fact that narcissistic and nihilistic behaviors are common does not mean they are not narcissistic and nihilistic, no? The fact that it's as "common as dirt" (your words) might make it boring, but I would argue that the terms would still apply. Stephenbharrison (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you want to assume (without making that assumption explicit) that well over 90% of the population is narcissistic and nihilistic and then based upon that assumption conclude that anyone who tries to create a Wikipedia page about themselves is likely to be narcissistic and nihilistic I can't say you are wrong. Let's apply that principle in other areas of life, shall we? Publishing something in Slate with your byline on it is equally narcissistic -- if one form of mundane self-promotion is evidence of narcissism so is the other. And unless you agree to abide by China's laws about Winnie the Pooh and Mocking the Soviet Union you are nihilistic -- if violating some web site's rules is evidence of nihilism, how much more so is violating a foreign nation's laws?
 * Crimo almost certainly is narcissistic and nihilistic, but saying trying to create a Wikipedia page is evidence of that makes about as much sense as saying that his having facial tattoos or posting rap videos proves that he is narcissistic, or that his exceeding the speed limit in his Honda fit proves that he is nihilistic. In my opinion, his murdering seven people is better evidence. I'm just saying. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: "Consciously or not, Wikipedia’s volunteer editors seem to have adopted a policy akin to some news publications that encourage focusing on the victims of mass shootings rather than “rewarding” the shooter with direct publicity", we do have a policy on that: WP:PERPETRATOR. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." We also have WP:BLP1E, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person [...] if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and WP:PSEUDO; "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. For background, my editor and I decided to go with "Consciously or not" because I wasn't seeing much editorial discussion about it. At the time, I wasn't finding an interaction where one editor told the other not to make a specific page for the suspect. I can see how that wording is confusing though so I'll check with my editor. Stephenbharrison (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * SH, I've no doubt you're aware that you're the journalist that wiki-insiders like to see write about us - the first one of your pieces I read was the Framgate one, where it was the best external summary I read. However, with this I concur with GN. Narcissism has a specific meaning, functionally an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration and lacking empathy. I've dealt with numerous individuals who have tried to create their own articles. The large majority do not show these symptoms - indeed, while they can be irritating to talk to, lacking empathy is rarely seen. Being ambitious and self-marketing are not indicative of anything that meets the actual criteria of narcissism. I can't speak for the others above, but where you reply but this is still narcissistic, no? above, I would just go "no, it's not". Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Nosebagbear. Just a reminder for everybody who's following along, I didn't actually use the words "narcissism" and "narcissistic" in the piece. I know that narcissism has a precise clinical definition. I am only using narcissism here on WP as a shorthand to refer to point 1) in the last paragraph and to respond to some comments. I will use different words to describe it going forward here.
 * I try to be aware that I am writing for a couple of different audiences with these pieces, including both wiki-insiders and "civilians." I think wiki-insiders know more than most that a LOT of people try to write a page for themselves. But if I picked the average person on the street and asked, "What would you think of a person who went to a lot of effort to make their own Wikipedia page?" and gave some additional background on this situation, the average person would say that this sounds very self-oriented and obsessive. It could be that the answer of an average person on the street might well be different than a wiki-insider on this particular point. Stephenbharrison (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The average person on the street has lots of misconceptions about Wikipedia. I would hope your job as a journalist is to inform and illuminate. And to echo something NBB said, you have a reputation among Wikipedians that I know for doing that; I am guessing that the average person has no idea how admin are chosen and your article on Tamzin explained that. No one came here to say a peep. But the criticism being offered here isn't about what the average person on the street thinks. You seem to think that a person writing about themselves means that they don't and you used your platform to suggest to the average Slate reader (who is already a bit different from the average person on the street) that they should think that too. And that is what has caused 4 very experienced Wikipedians to come to your user talk and pushback which is unusual in and of itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to pushback. I will, too. A few points-- While a wiki-insider has more knowledge about Wikipedia, I do not necessarily believe that they have a superior sense of moral judgment than the average person on the street.
 * Yes, I think that someone who says "screw the rules, I'm making myself a page," is acting out of a spirit of nihilism. They think the rules don't matter. I am glad that there are many other people on the street who would agree with me.
 * Of course, I think that my job as a journalist is to inform and illuminate. I have tried to do that here and in other pieces.
 * No, I don't think that it's unusual for experienced Wikipedians to pushback or give feedback on my stories. I get emails after every story these days. For what it's worth, my challenge is that I try to mirror the depth of thinking/effort from the sender and that can take a lot of time.
 * Yes, writing on the user talk page is relatively new, but that's partly because I've nudged people to email in the past. Either works for me.
 * FYI I will not be back online until this evening my time but will look back over this within the next day or so. Best, Stephenbharrison (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So a search of your social media history would show that you always follow every rule on every website you access? And that anyone who doesn't is "acting out of a spirit of nihilism and thinks the rules don't matter"? It's just a website. It's OK to say "that rule is stupid and I choose to ignore it" just as it it OK for the website to block you for doing that. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't believe that breaking the rules of a website is the *worst* thing that someone can do. Then again, it's not great either, especially if the rule is based on a meaningful principle. In my view, one of the problems we face as a society is this "me first, rules be damned" attitude, sometimes called "move fast and break things."
 * Now that it's been a few days since publication, I have had some time to think about the story itself and whether I should have told it differently. I still don't think my conclusion is off the mark, but that's just my interpretation. On the other hand, I am thinking now that perhaps I should have extended the paragraph that begins "In short" where I talk about the social cachet of having a Wikipedia page. That could have been a good place for 1-2 additional sentences about how lots of people have tried to create an article for themselves over the years. The fact that this occurs seems somewhat obvious to me and you, but perhaps not to every person on the street. Within that paragraph, I tried to communicate the gist that self-promotion happens on Wikipedia by linking an old story about the North Face promoting itself with content on the site, however, I have no idea how many people clicked on that link. When I'm writing these, I am navigating the tricky balance between (a) providing enough context and (b) not torturing the reader with an info dump. Reasonable minds can differ on that balance and the appropriate length for any piece. Stephenbharrison (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the fact that you don't want to "torture the reader with an info dump" and I pretty much do is the reason you write magazine articles and I design computer hardware (smile). My writing (mostly service manuals and the like) has been described as "railroad track writing - FactFactFactFactFactFactFact...", so your instincts as to what to include are almost certainly better than mine are. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to Boston-Gathering, celebrating Wikipedia’s 22th Birthday
After several years of distancing, I wan to invite you tomorrow (Jan 17th at 6pm) to the Boston-gathering at MIT.

Details can be found at Meetup/Boston/Wikipedia_22th_Anniversary_Celebration

Hope I can see you tomorrow — Johannes  Kalliauer  - contrib. 20:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

[Belated] Happy holidays!


Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Stephen!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)