User talk:BrillLyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Co-op mentor[edit]

ClueBot[edit]

Hey Brill, I'm Jethro, one of the mentors at The Co-op. You've been around for a little while, and I'm glad you're interested in learning about templates and some of the automated tools and editing techniques you mentioned on your profile. In terms of editing tools, were there any editing tasks you do that you'd like to find a script or tool for? If you're just curious about different scripts and tools in general, I can also talk a little bit about that as well. I think one thing we can start with is archiving your talk page here using ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Here's the exact templates I use on my talk page to archive: {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=336 | archiveprefix=User talk:I JethroBT/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=100000 | maxkeepthreads=30 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=10 | minarchthreads=1 | format= %%i }} {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}

The top part instructs ClueBot to archive with certain parameters about when to archive (age, in hours) and how large a single page can get (maxarchsize), amongst others. Give that a try here and feel free to play around with some of these parameters. The documentation for these parameters. can be found here. And let me know below what kinds of editing tasks I can help you identify tools for. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT. Thanks for the quick response to my mentorship request. I'm very happy to meet you.
During the recent Art+Feminism 2015 at MoMA event I was trying to update the Imogen Cunningham Works and publications section with a link to a digitized asset at the Met. I went on the IRC channel and Mdann52 (talk) helped by building this template for me: Template:MetMuseum. I saw that there is a category that collocates these direct links to digitized assets here Category:Museums external links templates. I wanted to try and add more of these templates, but I don't have much experience with templates and template building except as an end user, using them.
I have applied for a grant to possibly work on this as a project, but it has also led me to the realization that I would like to improve my technical skills in editing so I can be a better editor.
I archived my Talk page but now the TOC is gone from the talk page. And I'm not sure if I did it correctly, as I just did a cut and paste -- my impression of ClueBot is that it's more automated than that. I found the instructions a bit confusing.
My background is that I was a word processor at an investment bank for over 15 years, so my formatting skills in a very basic way I think are solid. But again, I think it's time to skill up and learn to be more technically proficient with some of the built in templates and tools. I also graduated from grad school in Library Science a few years back, which has made me especially enthusiastic about Authority Control, which I apply to all of the pages I work on.
I guess that's a start... Thanks again! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The content box only appears if there are more than 3 headings on the page, so this is normal behaviour, nothing you or CB could have done would have changed that. Mdann52 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Another thing I am learning. Thanks again for writing that template for me. I am going to try to build more and populate that category, if possible. I am grateful for your help on the IRC. :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. It's great to have someone with your background editing here. Thanks for contributing your time, especially in this kind of technical work. In terms of the archiving templates, everything looks good from here. Cluebot III is indeed automated, so it's the kind of thing you can just let run on its own once you've set the parameters you want.
I think this is an excellent project to work on, and I think once we start looking over Template:MetMuseum a little bit, you'll understand how it works and be able to build other ones based the resource you want to link to.
Thanks so much for your kind words and encouragement, Jethro. Hope I wasn't being too braggy about my skills and experience. I miss word processing so much (weird, eh?) so I do Wikipedia editing to relax -- and reconnect with my prior life. And any more concentrated librarian-type work I really also enjoy a lot, as I wish I could do more of this in my job. I also love the quick publish aspect of Wikipedia -- and when a page has lots of nicely sourced citations and standard format elements it makes me really happy. So....
Good to know the Cluebot auto-refreshes. I'll be very interested to see how it works as the page populates. Thanks so much for helping me with this.

Reviewing the MetMuseum template[edit]

So, to get us started, I want you to go into your preferences, look for the "gadgets" tab, look under the "Editing" header, and check off the "Syntax highlighter" option. This is going to make your life much easier-- it will detect different kinds of syntax while you're editing and highlight it appropriately. This way, you can know right away whether something is raw text or if it is syntax of one kind or another. It just makes looking at complicated syntax or large pages much easier.
Now, let's take a look at that template. Let me start by putting out the syntax for it here:
<i>[http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15324coll10/id/{{{1}}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}]</i> at the [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]]
There are a couple of different kinds of syntax being used here. The <i> </i> is HTML, and it italicizes everything in between. You might have seen this kind of syntax before on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Pretty much everything else is wiki markup, the syntax specific to Wikipedia projects. In a nutshell, what the template is doing is that it produces a link given an ID and a link label and displays it on the article with some additional text. As you know, the way the ID and link label are supplied is through the parameters in the usage template, {{MMoAobject|id|link label}}. Let's break the full template down a little bit:
You'll note that in http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15324coll10/id/{{{1}}}, there's a 1 surrounded by three curly braces. {{{1}}} is the first parameter, and it is replaced by whatever someone puts into the first parameter of the usage template, {{MMoAobject|id|link label}}, which is id in this case. (Note: The name of the parameter in the usage template is important for readability's sake, but the name actually doesn't matter. It could be called "number" and would work just the same.)
The next part is a little more tricky: {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}. This is a conditional statement for the second parameter, and in this case, it acts like a fail-safe if the parameter is not provided in the usage template. This piece of syntax basically says, "Check whether someone put in something for the in the usage template (i.e. link label). If they did, use that exact text. If they didn't, just use the title of the article." The title of the article is provided automatically by the {{PAGENAME}} template— it's one of the templates we call our magic words.
The rest of it I'm sure you're familiar with. The two open brackets [ ] that enclose the above pieces of syntax creates an external link, and the remaining raw text and wikilink to the MMA article are generated as they normally do.
So, after reading this over and digesting it, what questions do you have about this particular template? Template:MetMuseum is a good example to evaluate to get you started, so I think we'll get familiar with this one before we starting building one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
OMG I just opened this up and love love love the new shading with the Syntax highlighter. Thanks for the tip on turning this preference on! It's sort of like working from the Command Line -- where difference elements are highlighted like this. So great!
This is a great explanation. Thank you. I understand from your description how the template is built in terms of the code of the template -- and Mdann52 (talk) was really clear and helpful in explaining that the template is built so if a description / link label isn't inserted that it defaults to the page name.
I guess my question might be more basic than this. How do I start a template page correctly? And I was trying, with the MetMuseum example, to put an example in the template to assist end users, but I kept editing the /doc part, not the main part.... I suspect Mdann52 (talk) had to fix this -- or I possibly screwed up the /doc section of the template page? I'd like to fix this if I did indeed screw this up.
I may be jumping the gun here, but I also wanted to figure out a way to systematically make a list of GLAM entities who might have similar digitized collections. And see if there's a way to collocate their unique IDs / permanent URLs -- and then automate the process of creating these templates so it's not a hugely manual process. This template seems very elegant and mighty, and would be great for the institutions to be able to have connections between Wikipedia and their digitized assets, which might also be either part of the Works and publications sections and/or might be actual citations.
I haven't yet dug around for a comprehensive list of GLAM members (which I know is probably within the GLAM project parameters under members) but it's really the automation that I would like to figure out -- in addition to first step of learning more and getting comfortable with templates.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you are clicking the "edit" link in the green box (which edits the documentation), as opposed to the "edit source" button at the top of the page that allows you to edit the template... Don't worry, we've all been there ;) Mdann52 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's it! File under end-user issue... :-) Thanks! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess my question might be more basic than this. How do I start a template page correctly?
Whether it's a new article or a new template, you type out the name you want to call the template in the search bar (e.g. Template:MOMA Link). You'll be prompted to start that page if it doesn't exist yet. Once you've got the name, I think your next step should be to figure out how the institution links to its resources, and what in its URL is changing, so you know what part of it to make into a parameter. And honestly, it might be helpful just to copy the content of Template:MetMuseum and change it as needed for another institution. Editors do this sort of thing all the time (because the content of Wikipedia is free to use!)
Got it. This makes sense. Thank you! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


I may be jumping the gun here, but I also wanted to figure out a way to systematically make a list of GLAM entities who might have similar digitized collections
Interesting idea-- unfortunately I do not have the appropriate background to help you with this one! I also do GLAM work with the Pritzker Military Museum & Library in Chicago, and this is something volunteers and I have been doing manually for some time now. Automation would require a bot to pull content from these websites of digitized collections and post it to appropriate Wikipedia pages-- and that requires approval from the bot approvals group. Bots that do any kind of article work, let alone post external links (for which we have limitations), are pretty highly scrutinized, so whatever bot does this needs to work well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you do GLAM work with the Pritzker Military Museum & Library in Chicago on your user page. Very cool.
I guess what I'm thinking is some sort of spreadsheet that I will keep off-Wikipedia, where I can work through it systematically to add these links. I understand that this is not something to be abused or anything but I think within the spirit of GLAM and forging pathways -- especially if they are linked in service of citations and bibliographies (i.e., Works and publications sections) -- that this would be a really helpful enhancement.
So I could make the tools in case entities would want to use them in citations and bib sections, right? Like have them ready to be deployed? Or should I be creating them on a case by case basis?
It just seems like this is a very powerful thing, and would be useful to both Wikipedia and the organization that has the digitized assets that would enhance the Wikipedia entries. So I wanted to somewhat have a framework and/or organized approach to this as a project. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand your idea a little better. Getting something started off-wiki to organize this information would work well to get started, and I think starting with a small set of collections makes sense to start for your grant. I think the idea of making these resources accessible on articles is a good one. At the same time, there are a few editing principles that I think you should keep in mind moving forward with this project:
  1. External links in an article should be kept minimal and should be directly relevant to the article. (i.e. An article does not need external links to every digital collection available on it and a link should not be added on every article for which the topic is mentioned.)
  2. The editing community generally prefers contributions to be in the form of cited text, not just links to external websites. (That link talks about spamming in a commercial sense, which is clearly not what you're doing, but some of the principles apply). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the end of the day, not just a collection of links, even ones from reputable institutions. So, I think the idea to provide links to these collections need to be balanced by the potential for improvements to the article. Your goal to include these collections in the refToolbar cite option is, therefore, a fantastic direction to go in for this project. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So, given all that, I think you're good to go and get started on this project. Is there anything else I can help you with? I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're enjoying the syntax highlighter. I also had one of those OMG moments when I first started using it.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jethro! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand that the linking is not to be done en masse / against Wikipedia policy. I refer to the Imogen Cunningham usage, where the work was cited in the Works and publications section, along with its ISBN number and OCLC number -- but as a secondary sub-bullet, a direct link for end users to be able to access the digitized work. Which I think is within the scheme of GLAM-Wiki cooperation. So this template tool would be used in service of Works and publications, and/or as part of citations and references, and would support the GLAM-Wiki endeavor. Thanks for explaining this, Jethro... -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template category[edit]

Hi Jethro. The next thing I would like to do is change the name of the category Category:Museums external links templates to be more inclusive, as actually even right now not all of these entities are Museums. I was thinking GLAM might be a better option, i.e., Category:GLAM external links templates or even Category:GLAM digitized resource links templates -- something that would include all GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) entities, not be specific to only one. Especially because the distinction is often overlapping. I went on the IRC channel and they said only an Admin could delete the category -- that I would have to change each one manually. Would you be able to help me with this? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Erika. There's actually another avenue we can take here that doesn't require deletion. Once you've finalized a title for the category and created it (e.g. Category:GLAM digitized resource templates), we can setup what is called a "soft redirect" on Category:Museums external links templates. Articles in the old category will get moved to the new one with the help of bots who periodically check for these instances. So, on the old category, you would put the following syntax:
{{Category redirect|GLAM digitized resource templates}}
Once you put the code on there, a bot will be along within the next day or two and will move the articles over appropriately. You could do it manually, but I'm always a fan when there's a program doing the work for you. I'm reluctant to outright delete the old category, even if it is inaccurate, in case there are folks still using it. In time, it can be deleted, but this way, we can fix the problem without disrupting anybody else. By the way, another note on categories: I'd suggest getting HotCat, which allows you to add categories to Wikipedia pages much easier.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jethro -- I think I may wait on doing anything this "big" until I talk with some of the local Wikimedia NYC folks (Pharos and Dorothy Howard) to see if this would be a disruptive thing. We have an event on Sunday at Barnard so I will report back what they say.... Thanks again for all of your help with this. I know I have already learned so much in this short time. Best to you -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Live" usage of MetMuseum template[edit]

Hi Jethro -- I wanted to let you know that I have been using the MetMuseum template in another live test on the following pages:

I think the next step I would like to take is to find another institutions with digitized assets that have a similar "permanent" URLs and/or Unique Identifiers -- so I can do a version of the template myself.

Are there any resources at the Pritzker Military Museum & Library that would benefit from this template? Or another GLAM entity that either you or I might have an invested interest in -- where it is part of one of our Watchlist or Contributions? I could go through NYC assets but thought I'd offer.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: sounds promising - drop me a line if I could be any assistance, either on my talk page or Email me, and I'll see what I can do. Mdann52 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: I definitely will -- thanks so much! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: These look like solid additions to those article. Your offer is awfully kind. The Pritzker does indeed maintain some digital collections and named collections on some topics. I'm also currently working with the Special Collections Research Center at Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago, which maintains digital collections here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Very cool. It looks with the Pritzker links you shared, there's a webpage that's tied to an OCLC number -- but opening the digitized object, it is a CONTENTdm interface. This was also the interface for the MetMuseum digitized assets. Interesting....
Wondering if there should be separate templates for digitized books vs. images. Any thoughts on this? I guess I am more interested in focusing on the books and documents here because they naturally dovetail into references and citations and works & publications / bibliographies. If the images are old enough and in the public domain they might be a great project to add them to Wikimedia Commons, perhaps? An additional note, the MoMA templates in this category has separate templates for artist and object. Hmmm...
The U of Chicago assets are a lot more dense and complicated. Wow. I need to dig around there.... It looks deceptively small from that first landing page. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Technical barnstar.svg Co-op Technical Barnstar
Hey Erika, your initiative in moving your digital collections project idea forward is pretty amazing, and I thought that merited a little recognition. Thanks for your enthusiasm and hard work right off the bat. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much Jethro! :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-12[edit]

15:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Mentoring - Barnstormer[edit]

Hi I JethroBT (talk) -- Starting a new section to maybe enhance readability (hope that's okay)....

I wanted to send you a Mentor Barnstormer. It is great as a Mentee to receive one but I would like to be able to reciprocate.

Is this difficult to create -- and would it be a welcome addition to the current set of Barnstormers?

I dug around a little and it looks like it is a template -- so that sort of fits perfectly with what we are doing here.

Just an idea. No worries if it's too much and not wanted. Best -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's very generous of you, thanks! Making the barnstars like the one above took quite a lot of time to do from scratch. They were specifically made for The Co-op, but there are tons of barnstars already available on Wikipedia already-- you can check some of them out here. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it's the graphics part of it, eh? All of the graphics for the Co-op are very cool. I wish I could do that but I'm a Luddite when it comes to graphics. Well, maybe it could be something in the future as the Co-op program expands. I am super grateful for your patience and help. So instead of a Barnstormer, I will just thank you! :-) Thanks again, Jethro. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

bot importing pictures from open access journal PDFs[edit]

commons:User:Open Access Media Importer Bot cc: Rhododendrites --Jeremyb (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
so nice to meet you! thanks for your contributions to the cause. -jmm Failedprojects (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-13[edit]

15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

It was great to talk with you at Wikipedia Day NYC 2015! Thank you for working on templates --Mozucat (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor and otherwise edits[edit]

I see that you've recently done a series of edits on Ernie Chambers. I've got no complaints to make about the content of the edits. However, all of them are marked as minor, although many of them do not meet the criteria for a minor edit at all.

Please see WP:MINOR for these criteria. Note, in particular, the first item in the list "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit", which is "Adding or removing content in an article". Several of your edits, such as this one, did just that.

This is more than a mere quibble. Many editors have their watchlists set to exclude minor edits; marking a non-minor edit as minor means that such article-watchers won't see it and won't know to check up on it. Although I'm sure it was inadvertent on your part, marking a non-minor edit as minor can look like an attempt to sneak a content change past article-watchers.

It never hurts not to mark an edit as a minor one. I'd suggest that you leave the "minor edit" box unchecked, unless you're doing something like correcting an obvious spelling error or the like. Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ammodramus. Thanks so much for the feedback. I have been editing quite a few pages over the last year and a half and have never had this information. I tend to edit in small bits and it seemed to me that the cumulative effect might be minor, which was why I was marking the edits as minor -- although to your point, the overall effect of the edits is not minor. I usually leave the box unchecked if I move huge sections or add something significant like an infobox or works and publications area.
This is difficult for me, as I would be leaving the minor box unchecked a lot. This seems a bit odd to me, as the edits do seem minor in each iteration. I am definitely not trying to "sneak" content change. If you see the pages I edit, I am obsessed and motivated to clean up and add legitimate citations and improve works and publications, general format structure, add authority control templates, etc. to pages. My intention is to leave pages in better shape than I find them.
It has been suggested that I work in a different way than the small edits, but I have found that doesn't work for me. I guess I could leave the box marked Minor unchecked but it seems a bit of an overreaction, as often and typically my edits are minor, although there might be a lot of iterations of the edits. It's one less box for me to check -- and you can see I'm pretty conscientious in making an edit summary comment, so again, my intentions here I think are above-board.... Thanks for the info. It is something I will definitely consider. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
p.s. I like The Way We Live Now too! Trollope is great... And I was born and grew up in Nebraska as well. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Erika! I sympathize with, and share your preference for, editing incrementally. Not only does it reduce the likelihood that I'll screw something up and have to start a big multi-part edit over again, but it seems courteous to other editors to enable them to revert one edit at a time. I never like it when somebody does a complex edit to an article on my watchlist in which they mix useful material with problematic stuff; I can't just revert the bad, and it's a headache to go through and try to fix it all manually. I have to assume that fellow editors will occasionally take exception to one of my edits, so I should make it as easy as possible for them to launch the revert-discuss process.
I don't think it hurts at all to leave the minor-edit box unchecked, even if the edit qualifies as a minor one. I've currently got 1800 pages on my watchlist, and my preferences set so that I see all changes, minor and otherwise. Checking the watchlist doesn't generally take that much time, and I wouldn't save much by excluding the minor edits. For my part, the only time I check the box is for indisputable spelling and punctuation errors (e.g. missing periods at the ends of sentences) or formatting fixes (e.g. removing extra vertical spaces between paragraphs). I don't even like to use it when I'm reverting obvious vandalism.
Trollope is great, but I don't like The Way We Live Now quite as much as some of his other novels. One of the things that I like about his work is that he doesn't go in for pure-good or pure-evil characters: even bad guys like Ferdinand Lopez or George Vavasor have some good qualities, and when they meet unpleasant ends, it comes across as a regrettable waste of someone who, under other circumstances, might've been good. The reader doesn't feel a sense of outrage when Mr. Emilius escapes the gallows, the way one would if, say, Quilp had got off with community service. But in TWWLN, Felix Carbury is thoroughly rotten, with no redeeming qualities; and I can't help thinking that Trollope was pandering to a readership that wanted a Dickens villain. But that's just one reader's opinion... Ammodramus (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to revert to the subject so quickly, but your most recent edit to Ernie Chambers was anything but a minor one, and should certainly not have been marked thus.
Indeed, the whole section is problematic under WP:NOTNEWS: I think it'd be better to leave the matter out unless and until we've seen whether it figures as important in Chambers's whole career. Unfortunately, WP articles about politicians and other current controversial figures often go that way: paragraphs about issues that were hot for a few news cycles get added, and over time the article becomes a higgledy-piggledy mass of such material. I think it'd be wiser to wait and see if the controversy du jour is still considered important weeks or months from now.
But I'm wandering from my point. May I earnestly (no pun intended) suggest that you default to leaving the minor-edit box unchecked? As I said, it does little or no harm to leave a minor edit unmarked; and WP:MINOR expressly states "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette". Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. This is a brand new concept for me. So it is taking me a lot of adjustment in editing to NOT check the box. It's actually an ingrained reflex at this point, so the fact it was checked for that edit was just a mistake on my part, not me actively disregarding your suggestion. I understand the concept now -- it is a matter of muscle memory retraining. My editing was really disrupted by this change/suggestion. I am now super paranoid and stressed out about whether or not to check the box. I would also prefer not to have the sense that someone is viewing edits with an eye if I have remembered to not check the box constantly. It also seems like a minor thing, as I am not harming the pages I am editing, but am adding a lot of value added things I mentioned above. So if you can just sort of bear with me, I'd appreciate it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to hector you about this, and I'm not watching your edit history for Wikisolecisms. The Chambers article is on my watchlist, and when I see an edit on the watchlist with a boldfaced "m" and a green "+1,196", it sets off alarms.
I'd suggest: don't stress at all; just leave the box unchecked all the time. Among other things, it'll save you a second or so every time you make an edit, since you won't have to take the extra step of checking the box. It certainly doesn't hurt to leave the box unchecked.
Good luck with the muscle-memory retraining. I sympathize with you on that, since I switch back and forth between Windows and Linux machines, and I invariably hit the wrong key sequence when I want a special character like an em-dash — Ammodramus (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Haiti[edit]

Flag of Haiti.svg

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi BrillLyle, I saw your participation in the "Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd/HaitiCROWD" and thought I'd extend the invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Survey[edit]

Co-op logo.svg

Hi there! Thanks for contributing your time to learning contributing to Wikipedia through mentorship at The Co-op. The Co-op is actually a very new project on Wikipedia, and you've been a great help in helping us improve it so far. We want to get your feedback on your use of the Co-op in addition to your experience with your mentor and editing Wikipedia generally. When you are able, please take the Qualtrics survey here to give us your feedback. With your help, we can make the Co-op and mentorship helpful for different needs, and expand the space for many editors to use. Thanks for your help, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)