User talk:K6ka/Archives/2019/November

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. 2019: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec Other archives 2013: October, November, December 2014: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2015: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2016: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2017: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2018: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2019: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2020: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2021: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2022: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2023: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2024: January, February, March, April

I honestly just started editing it very absentmindedly; I thought the draft had already been merged (didn't check the page history and was only half-paying attention to Discord). Oh well, it's time for me to go to bed anyways... —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An
  resysop criteria
  should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Concert attendees at the Electric Daisy Carnival, Los Angeles, California, 2010 Hello, K6ka. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Concert Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Medjed (god) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection be updated with your change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipWolf (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Marked —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Coleco Gemini video game console, a console clone of the Atari 2600 produced by Coleco in 1983 Hello, K6ka. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Coleco Gemini Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Concert • Audience Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get your block of Parulpahari. Did you not see my comments at the AIV report or on the user's talk page? – Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I did see your comments. And I disagree with them. See Praxidicae's response. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user adds to Western Pahari a link to a website about the Western Pahari languages that contains extensive description of their gramars: that was good. Then they add the link to a broader article: Northern Indo-Aryan languages, where it arguably does not belong. The Praxidicae comes along and reverts them alleging it was spam (no, the website is not a personal blog, I don't know where they got that idea from), then directly escalates to giving the user a level-4 warning (no previous messages of any type had been given on the user's talk page) and reporting them to AIV. Yes, the user was wrong in reinstating the link to Northern Indo-Aryan languages after it had been removed and they were wrong to add it to the two category pages – and that's what I was trying to explain to them. I did comment both in the AIV report and on the user's talk page, to the same effect as what I'm explaining now. I only did what frankly should have been both Praxidicae's and your own due diligence and what happens then is that you completely ignore all that and give the user an indefinite block. I hope you'll appreciate why I'm finding this situation perplexing. – Uanfala (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's their own personal blog. It's not a reliable source and it's a blatant attempt to spam their own work. Praxidicae (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the link you will also see this. They link their FB, Twitter and other social networks there where it explicitly states it's a personal blog run by "@pahariparul". We don't allow self-proclaimed experts to insert their personal websites all over the place just because it is about the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, it's likely they are the creator of the website. But where did you get the idea it was "a personal blog". What I'm seeing at https://www.himachalibhasha.in is a website entirely dedicated to the Western Pahari languages, with extenstive content on aspects of the grammars (see for example its content on nouns or the phonology. This is a suitable website to add as an external link. – Uanfala (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, read the site. It's not a reliable source. It is not suitable as an

external link and it literally says "personal blog" on their "official" Twitter and Facebook, all of which are on the website. Praxidicae (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I did read the site. Have you read it too? I didn't know you can read Hindi. – Uanfala (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the website has links to the bottom to a corresponding page on facebook and on twitter, so what? Yes, it's no a scholarly publication and should not be used as as a source for any strong statements, but it is not used as a source – it's added to the "external links" section. For minority languages, it's common to add external links to websites by members of the communities concerned. – Uanfala (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I claim to be an SME in

original research and we don't allow that in external links or anywhere else. Praxidicae (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. -
  WP:ELNO. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What exactly on the website do you find misleading? Anyway, I'd be happy to continue this discussion on the article's talk page (or elsewhere), but as for the Baltimore accent, the situation is not comparable as there likely exist quality online sources already, so there's less scope for community-led initiatives here. Anyway, what brought me here was the unjustified block of this user. K6ka, would you mind lifting it please? It really continues to be difficult to see why a user should be blocked without meaningful explanation and over a matter that experienced editors disagree about. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not unblocking a user who makes edits like this one. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yes, I reverted that one, that's definitely a sign of low wiki-competence. However, if you would like to block someone for CIR you'd need to have a larger sample of their edits. It is not right to indef people after their first step, and it is not right to indef people over a matter that there's disagreement about. – Uanfala (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clear cut. Repetitive spam/promotion that continued after warnings and multiple reverts. I'd have blocked too. It's not a CIR block, it's a spam/promotion block. They can appeal at any time if they promise to stop spamming their site. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala "It is not right to indef people over a matter that there's disagreement about"? So you think that every time one individual editor is against an indefinite block that editor has a veto on the block, even when there is an unambiguous consensus among other editors for it? Because that is what you are saying. When you posted that message you knew full well that three other editors, including two administrators, all held the same opinion, and that you alone held a different view. (Since then Ferret has raised those figures to respectively four and three.) Consensus is that the editor was spamming, and that the block was justified. No, we don't forbid blocks whenever there's "disagreement" about it, especially not when the disagreement consists of one person out of line with consensus among everybody else. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same case, JBW? Here's the sequence of events as I've seen them:

• Parulpahari adds to the article Western Pahari a link to https://www.himachalibhasha.in/, a website in Hindi about the Pahari languages.
• I have a look at the website and decide that this is the kind of external link we normally allow on that sort of article, so I incorporate it into the external links section
• The user then adds that link to two categories (where it does not belong) and to another article (where, arguably, it also does not belong)
• Praxidicae, who it later turns out mistook the website for a personal blog, then comes in and posts Parulpahari's first talk page message: a level 4 [sic!] warning, and then files a report at AIV.
• I comment on the report [3] to the effect that this is not spam and there's no need for admin action, and leave a brief note stating the same on the user's talk page.
• At this point I was hoping the misunderstanding would have been cleared, but K6ka jumps in, ignores what I've written and blocks the user straight away. Now, if there's consensus among "three other editors, including two administrators", then this is nowhere to be seen at this point. The only thing that at least comes near to an informed opinion was against any type of block.

So, what am I missing? Yes, several editors have so far commented favourably about the block, and maybe that's the consensus you're referring to. But it was my impression that consensus was meant to be achieved through informed discussion and not through head count, and what I'm seeing so far is one editor perpetuating the false claim that the website was a personal blog, and two other editors simply asserting that the link was spam, without giving explanation and without any readily visible means how they could have arrived at that conclusion without either experience in the topic area or knowledge of the language the website is in. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your input. Well, I guess I don't see the topic to be as broad as you do. This is a group of closely related languages without any official status, and I wouldn't expect there to be any decent "official" websites out there. See, even for the more significant Nuristani group, all we've got is one linguist's collection of notes, and for many of the smaller languages of neighbouring Pakistan we don't have any online resources besides the scant content at the Forum for Language Initiatives. Sure, that guy's page isn't coming from an established organisation, but for minority languages we can't often expect more. My approach has generally been to allow, and often encourage, links to grassroots initiatives. As far as I can see, a huge amount of work has gone into that website and I'm not seeing any indication it's being used to promote any views or to sell anything. – Uanfala (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest running it by a WP:RSN then and seeing if it's usable. But the fact remains, the link was being spammed by an editor named after the site's owner. This is a classic spam case and almost any admin viewing AIV reports would have blocked. That the link might be useful is irrelevant to the user's clear intent and disruptive behavior. -- ferret (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any indication it's being used to promote any views or to sell anything. Now it's my turn to be perplexed. This edit most certainly looks like an attempt to get people to visit their website. That is indeed spam (and fairly run-of-the-mill spam too). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err, on what basis do you suspect Giano's account of being compromised? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Easily explained! I woudl try and suppress Eric Corbett's massive contributions too, if I was responsible for his absence. Giano (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Casliber: Easily explained. 1 2 3. A bit odd for a user who's been here since 2004, so I was puzzled and suspected compromise. It was initially reported on AIV. At first I dismissed it as soon as I saw the edit count, thinking it was a user unhappy with someone's comments at WT:Arbitration Committee. Upon closer inspection, though, I saw the three edits that inexplicably vandalized WP:Arbitration Committee and WT:Arbitration Committee, so I blocked as a suspected compromise. I gave -revi a jab, because I had to head out of the house, and they concluded it wasn't a compromise while I was out. That's my easy explanation. I have no hard one to give. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed contacted for investigation (Stewards are responsible for locking compromised account). I concluded it was not compromised because it was not doing anything malicious other than the vandalism, they edited their user talk after the block was placed, and it was not privileged account (so the harmful action it could do was limited to ECP'ed page) — regards, Revi 13:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that unrelated? It's an explanation of the three edits you link to above — 1 2 3: — edits which "[reminded] the Arbs on their own page of just how many pages he [=Eric Corbett] created, improved and raised to GA and FA". It could not easily be more related, so why collapse it? Please don't collapse this post of mine, K6ka. Feel free to remove it, of course. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  This thread was started as an inquiry into my block, which was because I had suspected an account compromise. It has already been proven that this isn't the case. Any inquiry into why those edits were made in the first place should go to

  ANI, not here. I'm not interested in dealing with the complicated narrative and the long, winded history behind this, and I did not block because I have something against Giano. I simply got a report, suspected an account compromise, and treated it as such. Good to see that it wasn't a compromise. Now let's move on with our day. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Hello. Where in ADMINACCT does it say you can revert legitimate questions about your unexplainable actions? Please prove that your account hasn't been compromised. You've published a SHA-512 commitment. It should be quite easy for you to prove to me that you are still in control of your account. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:HOUND territory now and I think everyone needs to knock it off. Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What are you talking about? I asked a polite question and have not yet received a direct response from the person I've asked. They seem to have summoned a variety of friends to run interference. Why don't you just let them answer me, and I'll then go away. I see that Giano made a few silly, protest type edits. They were reverted and the activity had stopped. If there was a problem with Giano's editing, the first step was to ask Giano to stop. If a block was needed, it's for
      WP:POINT and there's a block message with diffs. Had that have happened, I would not complain. But instead there was a "secret" block an hour after the bad edits had ceased, and no block message. No prior attempt at communication. This is weird behavior by an administrator. Because they accuse Giano of having a compromised account, it naturally calls into question the idea that maybe they are the one who's account is compromised, by a troll, who is looking to amplify disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Maybe you can explain what a secret block is? I can see the block log and message pretty clearly. The diffs from the account itself tell the story of why it was a suspected compromised account. I was under the impression that we didn't expect veteran editors to vandalize AIV, or ARB but I've been wrong before. Also congrats, K6ka, I didn't know you got hired as a make people disappearer sysadmin! Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can. Always happy to explain. A secret block, as Giano used the term, is one where the blocking admin fails to leave the blocked user a talk page message explaining the block, the policy violated, and perhaps a few sample diffs. Had this been done, so much trouble here could have been avoided. Does K6ka understand what they did wrong, nevermind what Giano did wrong. Two wrongs don't make it right. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't had much experience with Giano if you think an experienced editor wouldn't do such silly things. We have a page about that...where is it...

WP:SPIDERMAN. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:POINT. So-called "silly things" like vandalizing arb pages to express discontent violates that policy. An admin such as yourself might be well served to catch up on it. Kb03 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sarcarsm and disrespect are so awesome. I am aware of that. Now explain what that wasn't noted to Giano's talk page in a block message. It would have been so much easier for all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no need or reason to tag compromised accounts. I'm pretty sure such an experienced editor as Giano knows how to appropriately request an unblock and doesn't need direction, so what's the real problem here? Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that an admin thinks its okay to block an established user without providing any explanation on the user's talk page. This is a problem that if continued will eventually lead to ArbCom. I wish K6ka would hear this and say that they understand. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: It's obvious that Giano was climbing the Reichstag if you're familiar with his history vis-a-vis ArbCom and Eric Corbett. But if you're not (and most admins don't follow the ins-and-outs of arb drama), an established user vandalising high-profile pages is the textbook sign of a compromised account. K6ka was absolutely right to act quickly on that, which I'm sure we'd all appreciate if our accounts were hacked. I agree that it would be better to leave a talk page notice straight away too, but let's not forget that a blocked user is shown the reason in the block log as soon as they try to edit, which Giano did within minutes of being blocked. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's appears that Giano had stopped about 60 minutes before the block. Knowing Giano or if the admin were to familiarize themselves with Giano's long block log (a good practice: check user's block log before blocking!), they would understand that this was typical Giano behavior, not a compromised account. Blocking Giano 60 minutes after he stopped being disruptive was a pointless escalation. Failing to leave a block notice is just adding fuel to the fire. I think an admin should never block an established (non-throw away) account without leaving a block notice. It would be great for K6ka to hear this good advice and confirm that they've understood it. This will help Wikipedia in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman I say this genuinely and without my normal level of sass but I strongly suggest you drop it. k6 has given his reasoning and if the ANI thread is anything to go by, is acceptable by consensus. No editor is required to give you a response just to placate you. And all you're doing now is digging a hole for both yourself and Giano by pointing out the fact that he is perpetually uncivil and probably deserving of a block other than for a compromised account. Please stop hounding him and let it go. Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the lawyer for K6ka? Please let them speak for themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, are you kidding me? It can't be explained any clearer, there's no need for K6ka to reply here when multiple respected editors explained why. You started that witch-hunt of an ANI thread and are continuing it here. It's over. Kb03 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no kidding here at all. Secretive and unsubstantiated blocks always need questioning. Clearly, this block came from on high because I questioned why a prolific content editor’s edits were being hidden from public view. A disgusting action clearly ordered by the WMF. Giano (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you were vandalizing AIV and WP:ARB. Now go scurry off and spam your shrine to Corbett elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, you've got to be shitting me. First you claim that it's a so called "secret block" and now you claim that it's the WMF. You vandalized project pages to make a point, that shit doesn't fly. You were reported for it, it looked like a compromised account, blocked as such. You don't want that to happen, maybe discuss things instead of vandalizing to prove a point. Novel idea. Kb03 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• {{u|Waggie} }Not helping the Encyclopedia? Banning Eric Corbett one the project's most prolific producers of FAs and GAs is not helping the encyclopedia. Secondly, a block of which the only notification is buried on some obscure page is a secretive block. Why not put it on my talk page where everyone can see it? Finally, bringing Eric Corbett's massive edit contribution to the attention of the Arbs and other editors is not vandalsing, but a useful contribution for the project's future. If the Arbs hadn't tried to hide them away, it woudl not have been necessary at all. You can blame any disruption entirely on the Arbcom for their despicable actions. Giano (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Kb03 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 47, 2019)

The National Museum is a Czech museum institution intended to systematically establish, prepare, and publicly exhibit natural scientific and historical collections. It was founded in 1818 and is located in Prague. Hello, K6ka. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: National Museum (Prague) Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Coleco Gemini • Concert Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Growth team updates #11

Welcome to the eleventh newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

General news

• Expanding to more wikis: the team is preparing to deploy Growth features to Ukrainian and Hungarian Wikipedias. Wikis that already have the features are Czech, Korean, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Basque Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together if your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.
• Mentor training: we tried out our first training for mentors with the Czech community, so that experienced users can build skills that help them retain newcomers.
• The guide for mentors has been updated. Translations are welcomed!

Help panel results

The help panel was first deployed to newcomers in January 2019, and we have now finished analyzing data to determine its impact. A brief summary is below, and more in-depth information can be found here (in English).

• In summary, although we have seen a good amount of usage of the help panel, the help panel has not shown an increase in activation (whether a user makes their first edit) or retention (whether a user returns to edit again).
• This is a disappointing result, and our team has discussed potential reasons for the result and ideas for the future. Although we have many ideas for how to improve the help panel, we have decided to keep our attention on the newcomer homepage and newcomer tasks projects for the coming months.
• We'll be using the help panel as part of the newcomer tasks project: using it to guide newcomers while they complete suggested edits.
• We welcome questions and thoughts about this on the project's talk page.

Newcomer tasks deployment

• The first version of the newcomer tasks workflow (V1.0) will be deployed in the next weeks on our 4 priority wikis. This version will suggest articles to edit based on maintenance templates. In this first version, we expect many newcomers to initiate the workflow, but not many to select articles to edit or complete edits. We expect future versions of the feature to increase those behaviors.
• We're excited about this project because the majority of newcomers visit their newcomer homepage, and this will be the first element of the homepage that clearly asks the newcomer to start editing.
• These are the next two versions of the feature, which are already being planned:
  • V1.1 (topic matching): will allow newcomers to choose topics of interest (such as Art, Music, Sports, or Technology) to personalize their suggestions. After evaluating several approaches, we have decided to use a new ORES model built by the WMF Scoring team. The model will automatically identify the topic area of each article. We expect this to increase how often newcomers select articles to edit.
  • V1.2 (guidance): once newcomers arrive on an article to edit, we will use the help panel to provide guidance about how to complete the editing task. We expect this to increase how many newcomers actually complete productive edits.
• The project page includes links to the designs of the workflow, and we welcome questions and thoughts on the talk page.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

20:17, 18 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) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The steam hammer is a type of hammer Hello, K6ka. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Hammer Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: National Museum (Prague) • Coleco Gemini Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)