User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 42

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not fixing a link if you have usurped the redirect. I also don't think you should be replacing a redirect to a how-to-guide to replace it with a draft page. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You are commenting that I am converting

WP:DD links to Wikipedia:Database download. WP:DD was established in 2005 and had 50 use instances before I started converting them to the full link. Yes, it is the usurpation of a redirect, but this is not a popular redirect with much active use. I will take it to the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk)

15:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#Proposal_to_usurp_shortcut_WP:DD Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

December 18, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. Wednesday December 18 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 02:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. If your are in Seattle, the address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Bluerasberry,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Please address Wikipedia_talk:Prices#Inappropriate_redirects ASAP. I believe this is the most shocking deception of editors via a redirect I can ever recall having encountered on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I find it challenging to enter a discussion which starts with me facing an accusation of a shocking deception. If I entered this discussion and talked about my edits, then I question my ability to do so while giving appropriate respect to the intense emotion over there. If I entered the discussion and talked about the expression of emotion, then I think that I would like to join with a mediator, because that discussion is high tension. Emotion does not translate very well in plan text on the Internet, and I question by ability to communicate clearly in an environment which seems to merit sincerity rather than any particular objective action on my part.

My first thought is that I should seek a mediator to join the discussion. What do you think of that? What would you propose? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lane. I thought you might be interested in the upcoming Misinfocon conference. The conference itself will look at misinformation in the health space, and there will be an editathon going on at the same time plus the previous day, focusing on climate change. I got a travel grant from the Credibility Coalition to help with the editathon, so I'll be there. It would be lovely to see you if you can make it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. One of the Misinfocon organizers asked a bunch of us last month, "Does any one by chance want to deliver a presentation on the promise of crowd sourced content websites on delivering, reliable, accurate scientific information to different groups of audiences. I’m flexible on the specific angling of this but would love to have the wiki group represented." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: Confirmed I am going. I am not in regular contact with the organizers - are you talking with them, and can you advocate for us to speak? I am ready to support anyone in a presentation and I am always ready to speak. However, if you or anyone else would take the stage, I would prefer to support you by sharing my own presentation notes. In short - I am ready to present on wiki, medicine, science, etc; but if anyone else would do this, I have insight onto the landscape and would share to make anyone else do their best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Terrific! I've advocated for you to speak. I will follow up with them in the coming weeks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry, are you able to attend the Wikimedia Café at the new meeting time of 11:30 AM EST on Saturday, 25 January? Please let me know by signing up to attend the meeting, or pinging me here if you are unable to attend. Thank you very much. ↠Pine (✉) 00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blue Raspberry! You showed some interest earlier with the climate apocalypse article and left some helpful feedback on my page. I've made some (big) additions to the article in terms of organisation of content with lots of new sources. I was wondering if you'd like to take a look or if you had any ideas? We can chat on the talk page for the article if you'd like! Best, Eben Ebenwilliams (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ebenwilliams, I happened to visit this page, and saw your note. thanks for this note re the article climate apocalypse. I will be interested to take a look as well. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sm8900. That'd be great, thanks! Ebenwilliams (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

January 22, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. Wednesday January 22 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

@Coffee: I'm not sure how I stumbled across Wikipedia:Identity verification, but I would like to discuss how I can help improve it.

My motivation is twofold:

1. I handle a lot of such requests at OTRS (I'm currently involved in two at the moment) and it is my opinion that the general advice of editors to send people to OTRS ought to be modified.
2. Given our policy of not permitting scans of typical identity documents such as drivers licenses and passports, verifying identity is challenging and I'd like to see us sort through acceptable approaches in an organized way so that those cases that legitimately belong at OTRS can be handled by knowledgeable agents

I see you've gotten some pushback on this proposed guideline, and if I'm reading the history correctly, you were actively working on it but have taken a pause.

It's my observation that many inquiries to OTRS occur when someone creates a username matching the name of the person about whom we have a biography, and someone believes that the best next step is to send them to OTRS. it is my opinion that this advice ought to be modified, so one of the early steps is for you and I and other members of the community to determine whether my view on this is valid.

It is my guess that 90% of the time that Jane Doe creates the username "Jane Doe" and edits the article with the same name, that person has created the username for the sole purpose of editing that article and is unaware of Wikipedia:Autobiography. My experience is that once they become aware of this limitation, they are much less likely to be interested in going through the verification process.

It is my speculation that Jane Doe wants the username "Jane Doe" (as opposed to a pseudonym) because she presumes that this will carry more weight when editing the article "Jane Doe". If she knew that this were not the case and in fact should not be directly editing the article about her, the interest in verifying her identity drops considerably. We are wasting the time of editors and potential editors and OTRS agents when we give such advice.

If we are on the same page, I'd like to figure out how to make that point to editors, which might include making it prominent in this potential guideline.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Could you copy this to the talk page there for discussion? I think a public history of conversation would be useful. Otherwise, let me know that we should have this conversation here for now. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, done. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen https://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture-characteristics.html on objectivity and unemotionalism as a cultural value? I think you would find this non-Western view of Western-style professionalism interesting and useful while you advocate for cultural change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I have been performing tone policing, which lately is an activist talking point and often an action to avoid. At Flame Con (gay comiccon) one year I met Robot Hugs, who is modest but also might be the center of publicity around this concept from their comic, "No we won't 'calm down'". I recognize that I am telling people to calm down contrary to inclusivity advice, and you might be communicating that to me in an indirect way.

That paper you shared has a checklist of recommended behaviors. I will not agree or disagree with any of the recommendations, because there are great arguments for both sides of those decisions and more in different circumstances.

I had not seen this paper, and it could be a checklist for developing Wikipedia policy. Do you have ideas for where to post this paper and develop discussion to develop conduct policy? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tone policing might work better if it's directed at whole situations instead of at small bits. I hear that the research on words or small phrases is looking like a dead end – not a bad idea, but that context matters so much more that the value of individual words gets swamped. Consider someone saying "You're a <minority group>". That could be a plain statement of fact. It could be intended as an insult. It could be a way to include people or to exclude people. It could even be meant to include people and instead have the effect of excluding them. What matters isn't those words. What matters is all the everything around them.

But even if you have a human trying to do it, there are varying ideas about what tone is proper for which situations. A dispassionate and logical description of a problem works for some people. Other people believe that if you're being dispassionate and logical, then you don't actually care about the problem. Still others interpret that as you feeling exceedingly angry. And if you tell people from an "I care enough to show you that I'm angry" culture that they shouldn't show their anger, they're going to hear "Stop caring so much".

As for places to share it, maybe the first thing to do would be to write a proper article about professionalism with an emphasis on the cultural anthropology. Then you could talk about it at any of the usual places (e.g., WT:NPA) with an opening line like "My own culture values professionalism, but I realize that seeming uncaring doesn't work for everyone..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: There are a class of wiki edits which come without an expression of emotion, which is most routine edits, and some edits which do come with emotional language. When there are expressions of emotion, some are positive, like barnstars and Wikilove, and some are negative, like accusations phrased in certain ways. I think there are ways for machines to sort these kinds of attitudes, and humans sort emotional/nonemotional positive/negative also. There are grey areas but there are also some really clear situations which lots of people would call objectively positive or negative.

I am not shy about personal relationships. I have freely given out my video chat and phone number to many Wikipedia editors, and 100+ have chatted with me in those channels. There are lots of options for connecting.

I will not tell someone to withhold their emotion but anger can be a pickle. If one ignores the anger to address the issue, then that is a taboo for social insensitivity. If one addresses the anger and postpones the issue, then if the challenge is the issue, the emotional chat is not improving the situation. Addressing both at once is a challenge. In general, wiki edits and comments take seconds, but when a situation requires emotional labor, that takes both more time to perform and also carries a cost of occupying hours of thoughts. The Wikipedia community does not have limitless capacity to engage in emotional labor, yet the demand for emotional labor is increasing.

I want an article or guideline for whatever this concept is, you called it professionalism. I wished that academia or corporate human resources or some expert would come to Wikipedia with solutions for operating a friendly space, but so far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation at great financial cost has only identified that no such person exists and that a code of best practices will not be easy to develop. I make progress where I can and have worked on these issues continuously for several years now. I still fail often. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I need a smaller case practical outlet. There is a Wiki LGBT+ conference in a few months, meta:Queering Wikipedia. I will mediate a workshop on meta:Queering Wikipedia/Code of conduct. I do not perceive any closeness to the Wikimedia community endorsing any actionable behavior policy, but more discussion and documentation does seem like progress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that "positive" and "negative" are the wrong concepts. I think "constructive" and "destructive" are more relevant.

Consider a statement such as "I never liked him anyway". Some old AI systems look at that in isolation and call it a negative sentiment, but it could be a response that builds relationships or destroys them. "I never liked him anyway" becomes constructive if it's followed by "I'm so glad you finally dumped him. Do you feel like going out tonight? I really want a chance to talk to you". The negativity's destructiveness is confirmed if the next line is "No, I won't go to the funeral for your husband." I always need constructive communication; I don't always need positive communication.

Whether you "should" deal with the anger first or the objective problem first is a matter of culture. Speaking in sweeping over-generalizations, there's a "white patriarchy" approach seems to deal with the objective problem first and then hopes that Dad will stop being angry now that the problem has been solved. I think that most of the world takes a different approach. For example, I think that the Tend and befriend model would address the anger first. Maybe it wouldn't "solve" the anger, but it would probably acknowledge its existence and offer emotional support. Emotional labor can be draining, but I think it's sustainable when everyone does their fair share.

As for the whole community endorsing actionable behavioral policies, they already have. The m:Friendly space policies are a settled thing. The existence of the mw:Code of conduct in technical spaces occasionally surprises people, but it's widely accepted (although not quite universally, as there are a couple of people who object to it; they generally have lengthy block logs on their home wikis, too). There are a few standards that are at least widely expected even on wikis that have no written behavioral policies (like blocking users who make legal threats against other users and banning people who upload certain types of content). I don't know that we'll reach a point at which everyone, from every culture and personal situation will agree when and how it's okay, e.g., for editors to mention that another editor is gay. But I think we can make progress towards a middle ground, and in the meantime, I think it's important and valuable to remember how much we already have achieved.

Have you considered the

WP:EDP approach to codes of conduct? There's a default policy that applies everywhere, unless the local group adopts and enforces their own, in which case the local policy applies. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 20:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking in, "There are a class of wiki edits which come without an expression of emotion, which is most routine edits, and some edits which do come with emotional language. ..." A problem here is edits which should come without an expression of emotion, but which either do have an expression of emotion, generally in the edit summary, or which often imply an expression of emotion, like a revert. People here personalize things very quickly, which I consider partly due to the often emotional attitude around some topics, partly to the intrinsic limitations of typing text over the internet, which lets emotion accumulate around the most unemotional of topics, such as the MOS, partly to the difficulty a large proportion of editors here have with properly expressing emotions, and their frequent use of WP as a replacement for more usual methods of social communication, partly to the freedom many editors feel in expressing hostility here as compared to their quieter personal life.--afew of our most active disputants are in RL quite gentle people.

Some we can by changes to the environment without attempting to change people: I think changing 3RR to 1RR might do good, as well as rewording and perhaps even deprecating BRD. The technical fix of expanding the length of edit summaries, tho necessary for some purposes, might have had an unforeseen detrimental effect. I have proposed clerking ANI and ANB, tho this has been soundly rejected as added bureaucracy. Further objective analysis of what actually happens here might help, but I certainly agree with the view that " the research on words or small phrases is looking like a dead end ". DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to deprecate BRD; I just want BRD to be properly understood. It's supposed to be semi-secret method for an experienced editor to figure out who to talk to, and it gets used as "Ha ha, I reverted you, and now you're not allowed to edit until you say

Mother May I?

on the talk page!"

1RR can't be imposed until we go back to the old definition of "revert". Right now, if I remove one sentence of unsourced content (that isn't obvious vandalism or similar) from a page, you make an unrelated edit, and we repeat that pair of actions four times, then I've violated 3RR, because I've made four "reverts" to the page in 24 hours or less. That really won't work with 1RR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In the context of inclusion of underrepresented groups, this might interest you:

"Paul de Laat...examines how Wikipedia editors conceive of their participation, and how this leads them to perceive rules on Wikipedia. He concludes that, “Wikipedians either rejected [the proposal] (because it is antithetical to their conception of Wikipedia as a community) or endorsed it (because it is consonant with their conception of Wikipedia as an organization with clearly defined boundaries).” [1]

That proposal was about PendingChanges, but I think it holds true generally. What we individually believe Wikipedia determines which changes we want to see. If we view Wikipedia as the greatest resource of all time for popular hobbies, then all railroad stations and actors and video games must have separate articles. If we view it as an adult endeavor, then we must not have any significant detail about games that the 10 year olds are playing, because that's too babyish for us. If we view it as a place to recognize who's had significant effects on the world, then we will have many fewer BLPs, and they will reflect existing power and privilege. If we view it as a place to document people whose effects are primarily seen within a smaller community, then we'll write articles about small-town politicians and niche magazines, and every person from any marginalized community will be identified as being from that community.

Related to your panel about a code of conduct, I suspect that the same thing happens. If you see Wikipedia as a battleground for the (scientific) truth to triumph over the forces of muddled thinking, then a code of conduct sounds either pointless or harmful, (harmful because it can't effectively stop people from aggravating "us", but it might constrain our range of responses to the people who aggravate us by displaying their muddled thinking). If, on the other hand, you see Wikipedia as a place to level the playing field for marginalized groups, then a code of conduct (e.g., that prohibits people from disparaging your group) is obviously good. Since reading this, I have been wondering whether asking people how they view Wikipedia (and their role here) would be useful in understanding why they support/oppose/ignore codes of conduct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Another thing: In this presentation, Celeste Kidd answered a question by saying "Sometimes people who appear to be communicating – it's not really about the information. It's about sort of in-group/out-group value-establishing." I wonder what proportion of the incivility is uncivil in an etymological sense (i.e., it destroys the civitas), and how much is about defining the community (i.e., communicating that the speaker is part of the community, and the target is not). There would obviously be overlap between the two (the speaker might have erred in asserting the target's outsider status), but I am interested in whether we can get editors to understand the complications around saying that someone doesn't belong here. I think the same words and same actions could be both civil (e.g., if directed at a spammer) and uncivil (e.g., if directed at someone because of race) and perhaps simultaneously both (e.g., if directed at a good-faith but incompetent editor). A default code of conduct that said it's okay to say that spammers, vandals, and other disruptive editors don't belong, but it's never okay to do that on these other grounds, might be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You raise several subjects, each of which is interesting to me, and each of which I would discuss. I feel that this conversation is complex enough to discuss by voice or video. If you could meet to chat then I would talk and type notes.

You say, "The m:Friendly space policies are a settled thing." Of what you said this is most distracting to me, because DGG and I were in the group of about 10 people which developed these policies and applied them to the Wikimedia community. We definitely did not consider this text viable, actionable, or complete. I know that the WMF has increasingly directed people globally to adopt them, which is nice, but I am still conscious of the dozens of code of conduct conversations we have had continuously for years in New York City and beyond, and all the problems we surfaced. None of us ever intended for this to be a settled thing, and none of us intended for people to interpret this text outside the context of our values. I feel some personal failure for putting so much time and effort into this, and you cite the policy back to me as if to teach me about it when I felt that it was mine.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor anyone in the Wikimedia community have made any attempt or first step at presenting a code of conduct. There are some obvious and inexpensive foundations to doing so. If I had to say why the Wikimedia Movement does not have a code of conduct, the most prominent reason which I see in front of me is that historically many people in the Wikimedia Foundation opposed the concept. Things change quickly. Sometimes organizational culture carries over even when older people leave. There was no money for anything a few years ago, and now there is money for everything and all new people. I do not see the lack of a code of conduct or friendly space policy as the consequence of failed attempts, but the consequence of never having made an attempt. I fail to understand and find it unsettling that you have somehow come to believe "asking people how they view Wikipedia (and their role here) would be useful in understanding why they support/oppose/ignore codes of conduct". I am missing information or misunderstanding something. Where and how do you think there has ever been a reasonably developed attempt in wiki to have a code of conduct which was resourced well enough to be worth considering? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I say that the FSP is a settled thing to mean that it is widely accepted as an appropriate thing to have, not to say that it is

WP:FINISHED

.

To answer the last question, I think we'd have to define "code of conduct". For example, does

WP:CIVIL count as a code of conduct? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Jan 25, 12:30pm: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Together, we'll expand Wikipedia articles on American history and art, and the understanding that all communities bring to American culture, as reflected in the Met collection up until ca. 1900. With refreshments, and there will be a wiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided. Saturday Jan 25 Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 12:30pm - 4:30 pm at Uris Center for Education, Metropolitan Museum of Art (81st Street entrance) at 1000 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan (note this is just south of the main entrance) Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm, and some wiki-visitors may wish to take this opportunity to see exhibits together after the formal event. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! -- Wikimedia New York City Team 21:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Revision to my own role

Hi. I have revised my own role at Wikipedia:WikiProject History. I have added a note at the talk page to reflect this. Just wanted to let you know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your note

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		for your thoughtful, helpful, and encouraging ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject History. It is always nce to be appreciated, and to hear the positive input, ideas and encouragement from others who are at the WikiProject. I truly appreciate your note and your insights to me, re the WikiProject and my role. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Update re page

hi!!! okay, now I think I may have the page Wikipedia:WikiProject History somewhat fully revised, formatted and tightened up, organizationally, format-wise, and otherwise. feel free to take a look. thanks!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

request some help with other site

hi! I just left you a message at meta:User_talk:Bluerasberry#need_some_help. can you please offer some info? I need to find out where to post in discussions of civility,. addressing harassment, etc etc. I want to offer some comments, and it seems this process is only proceeding for a few more days. I appreciate any help. thanks!

sorry for this duplicate post, but I'm still trying to figure out how all these pieces fit together. at least I did take the time to find out how to link to another external wiki. I appreciate any help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

note re ideas

hi there. hey, are you in nyc? so am I. if so, is it possible for us to be in communication? I have some ideas for some wiki-efforts I'd like to move ahead with.

by the way, also, I never received your email. can you please resend it? if you do so, please let me know. I could leave it here on your talk page, but I'd like to keep it private if possible. please feel free to be in contact if you wish. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I emailed again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

new draft of items

Hi. it was great to speak to you today. as we discussed, I have tried to write an initial draft of my ideas, just to get the ball rolling, and maybe find some way to get this process started. however, one possible concern; it's possible that I'm a little better at saying these ideas over the phone, then going to the written page and trying to describe them there. could you please tell me if the draft below is good, or alternately if it needs to be changed edited, shortened, etc in any way? I would really welcome your insights. right now, I just want to get some kind of coherent draft ready,l and then later we can look into actually implementing the ideas and efforts that we discussed. the draft is at: User:Sm8900/item draft. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lane. okay, Ian and I are already discussing these ideas, at his talk page. I wrote a response to him ,and tagged you. You can view my ideas and my response to him at his talk page, at User_talk:Ipigott#ideas_page_ready. I hope you'll go there when you have a chance, and add absolutely any feedback or comments that you may have.,

by the way, don't worry, you don't need to respond in depth (unless you want to, in which case, please do!!); I just need a little input from a few editors, just to let others know we already have a few people on board, and just so that this effort is not solely my idea, but that in fact I am doing on behalf of a genuine group of editors who seek to build this as a resource, and who do think this does have positive value. and of course,m you are also free to offer criticism or feedback on any and all parts of this that you may not agree with. i appreciate all your insights. Please feel free to be in touch. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

new effort set up

I left the note below for several editors. please come by when you get a chance. thanks!!

Hi {{ping|Seraphimblade|GreenMeansGo|Nosebagbear|Fæ|Ghilt|Llywrch}}, Hi all. I have just created a new WikiProject, at 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Empowerment
. Please come over when you get a chance, and feel free to add your comments on the talk page. if you want to join, please feel free to add your name at the section for members. 

Right now, this WikiProject page is simply a redirect that points to a draft in my own user space. I want to retain editorial control, simply while I am still revising it enough to be ready to present to others. however, I would like to get some folks on board asap. this can be our new shared space to cover some of the points, concerns, and questions covered here. I hope you'll come over and join sometime.

Please note, all comments, views, and opinions are welcome there. I would simply like to start trying to get some members there now, just to get this off the ground. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request help with new Council for WikiProjects

Hi. I am trying to create a forum where various WIkiProjects can exchange ideas and information about their best ideas, efforts, methods, and accomplishments. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. I tried to create an active exchange at WikiProject Council, but did not get very far when I tried to do so.

I would like to get some interested editors together who might be interested in helping with this idea, either with getting WikiProject Council moving again, or creating a whole new WikiProject to do so.

You can sign up to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors Forum/Members. Right now, this page is a redirect to a draft in my user space; we will move it to the project space as soon as we have ten people signed up.

eventually, the goal would be to have a few people from a wide variety of WikiProjects and varioous topical areas, working together at WIkiProject Council, to help us create a forum and an exchange for ideas and information.

Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know. If you wish, you can simply comment on my talk page to let me know any comments or thoughts on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lane's response

It was nice to talk with you by phone. I like your ideas and appreciate the effort you put into documenting this important set of issues.

I have some comments at

• User_talk:Sm8900/item_draft_2#Be_aware_of_similar_efforts

I will be in New York City for the WikiWednesday meetup which will be on Wednesday 18 March 2020. If you are interested and available join me at METRO then and there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

hi. ok, that sounds excellent. I will definitely try to be there. however, unfortunately, I have some family engagements around that time, so I can't be 100% definite that I can attend the meeting on that date, but I will try. if we can make contact on that date, that's fine. if not, I hope we can communicate after that, through alternate methods.and of course, please feel free to keep writing to me here, in various talk pages at wikipedia. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bluerasberry. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

↠Pine (✉)

Hi. you had asked me to prepare a proposal to present to others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, to explain the changes that i wish to make, and to get their feedback and input, on what they think of the ideas.

I have prepared a brief, concise draft below.by the way, I have made a sub-section break for this draft, just to make it easier to edit; obviously, if you wish to remove the section break, that is totally up to you.

could you please let me know what you think? thanks!!

ok. what do you think? I have deliberately kept this very concise. I can add to it if you wish.

Also, for discussion of this proposal, there are various options as to where to discuss this. if you wish, I could set up a shared talk page in my own user space. or I could make it a sub-page of the WikiProject Council; however, before I would add any pages there, I would need at least some other editors who wish me to do so. Any options for this is fine with me.

Could you please let me know what you think of the ideas above? does this accord with what you wish me to present there? you had indicated a while back that you had some agreement with some ideas. I am willing to adjust or revise these in any way that you might wish. feel free to let me know which parts need changes, or need expansion, or need condensing; whatever you prefer is totally fine. I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)