User talk:Sue Gardner

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Looks like you've never been welcomed! :-(

Welcome!

Hello, Sue Gardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cbrown1023 talk 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Contents

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For Your Kind Attention[edit]

Please read this: Commons:User_talk:Russavia#Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_persons. JKadavoor Jee 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR: Wikipedia's IRC channels[edit]

Please see a current request for arbitration, which discusses the relation between

  • WMF and Wikipedia (and its ArbCom) and
  • Wikipedia's IRC channels.

I have added you as a party to the arbitration case.

Concerns include the use of IRC for

  1. canvassing administrators,
  2. sexual banter with children,
  3. chatting about lighting myself on fire with oil and a lighter (by a WMF employee), etc.

Another concern is the failure of WMF and Wikipedia to match the child-protection standards of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, by requiring two adults witness every child-adult interaction. The Scouts would not tolerate Wikipedia's editor

  1. telling a boy how to work around his parents' removal of his contact list from his email, and following up with emails and IM messages for months, including one following the boy's having "learned his lesson".
  2. telling a boy that the editor will be visiting his town the next week.

IRC is a liability to children and Wikipedia and certainly to the WMF.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As a note, please be aware that the Arbcom has removed you, Sue, as a party to the case. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The STOPhaus Movement Claims that WP Community is Purposefully Maintaining Libel[edit]

You may or may not be aware that there has been an ongoing feud between an anti-spam organization known as The Spamhaus Project and an anti-censorship collective known as The STOPhaus Movement. This has spilled over into Wikipedia community due to a largely biased and one-sided section on a page that seems to be gvery one-sided altogether. The Spamhaus Project has a page on Wikipedia and on that page there is a discussion concerning STOPhaus and their involvement in the "Largest DDoS Attack in History" as NYT so sensationally called it.

The NYT journalist, Nicole Perlroth and John Markoff were fed the content by Cloudflare, a DDoS mitigation company working alongside The Spamhaus Project. The Wikipedia article reflects on allegations against The STOPhaus Movement and even goes as far as to use a quote calling us "spam and malware hosters", "criminals" and various other libelous claims. We, if there is a "we" are a group of people, users, ISPs, and various anonymous supporters that believe that Spamhaus are over-aggressive in their means to the point it is, or should be, illegal. The debate is whether or not they are, in fact, criminal in their actions.

I am reaching out on the behalf of The STOPhaus Movement to suggest that your editors allow the inclusion of the allegations against Spamhaus, made by STOPhaus or the removal of any reference to STOPhaus from The Spamhaus Page. Maintaining what we are calling libel without moral or reasonable grounds to do so appears to be malicious propaganda and is being received as such. Congratulations on your new life, but you should understand first hand, how a NYT inaccuracy becomes a PR nightmare and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. should not promote the libelous abuse of any group of people.

Especially since the largest STOPhaus support comes from your hometown and a recently formed Political Party in Pinellas County support TSM. Seems you should be a proponent for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, bring a Floridian. Maybe London has already gotten to you though, who knows?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.120.156.50 (talkcontribs)

For info, Philippe has already replied to this on his talk page, where it was also posted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite, thank you, Demiurge - I was just coming here to say that. You beat me to it ;-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 news report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG
  • Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
We Can Do It!.jpg
  • Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

Question[edit]

Personal and Moral Rights?[edit]

In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."

We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."

So we would like to bring User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_138#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F to the attention of every member on board. JKadavoor Jee 11:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this. Sue Gardner (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. And please note a somewhat related discussion at Commons too: Concern about the bureaucrat role of Russavia JKadavoor Jee 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to let you know that your strong opinion along with others ([1], [2], [3]) influenced the Commons community to initiate a discussion to develop a policy for courtesy deletions. We expect guidance, opinions, and participation in the development of similar policies and guidelines in future too. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 02:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a good outcome, Jkadavoor: I'm glad about it. Thank you for telling me. Sue Gardner (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

Proposed deletion of Mike Lofgren[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mike Lofgren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

basically notable for one small event, no articles about him specifically, only the event.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for 06 August 2013[edit]

It's been almost two weeks since the last newsletter, and a lot of improvements have been made during that time. The main things that people have noticed are significant improvements to speed for typing into long pages (bug 52012http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52012), scrolling (bug 52014http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52014) and deleting (bug 52013http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52013) on large pages. There have also been improvements to references, with the latest being support for list-defined references, which are <ref>s defined inside a <references> block (bug 51741http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51741). Users of Opera 12 and higher have had their web browser removed from the browser black-list, mostly as a result of work by a volunteer developer (bug 36000http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36000). Opera has not been fully white-listed yet, so these users will get an additional warning and request to report problems.

Significant changes were made to the user interface to de-emphasize VisualEditor. This has cut the use of VisualEditor by approximately one-third. You can read about these at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013, but they include:

  • Re-ordering links to the editors to put "Edit source" first and VisualEditor second
  • Renaming the link for VisualEditor to "Editbeta"
  • Disabling the animation for section editing.
  • Changing all labels for the classic wikitext editor to say "Edit source", regardless of namespace.

There have also been many smaller fixes, including these:

Most of the Wikimedia Foundation staff is traveling this week and next, so no updates are expected until at least August 15th. If you're going to be in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013, say hello to James Forrester, Philippe Beaudette, and the other members of the VisualEditor team.

As always, if you have questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

General thoughts on building something collaboratively[edit]

General recommendations on how to contribute – SJ + 03:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Build a better mousetrap[edit]

"Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Wikipedia's basic design discourages female participation. So, in order to increase female participation in WP, you would have to go back to the beginning and fundamentally alter how WP works. Not likely. Cla68 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for 21 August 2013[edit]

Both VisualEditor and MediaWiki were upgraded recently. For VisualEditor, this is the long-awaited post-Wikimania update with many bug fixes and enhancements. Work also continues on speed at opening and during use, as well as on the bugs reported here and at other Wikipedias. The full report is at Mediawiki.

References are displaying properly, even when nested (bug 50749http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50749) or in image captions (bug 52427)http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52427). Reference lists are now always fully populated with references (bug 50094). Firefox users can insert an existing reference in the first paragraph (bug 52159http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52159). Opera users no longer see corruption of categories when a reference was added (bug 50385).

Stray spaces are being stripped from the start of paragraphs to end one of the common <nowiki> problems (bug 51462http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51462). We also fixed a round-tripping bug that caused desirable whitespace in templates (used to make templates more legible, e.g., by putting each parameter in an infobox on a separate line) to get corrupted (bug 51150).

Wikilink handling was improved. Users are not allowed to create internal links to invalid titles (titles that are actually impossible due to limits on acceptable character combinations in titles, not redlinks) (bug 33094http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33094). You can extend wikilinks, but it won't do so over a wordbreak (like a space) (bugs 49931 and 51463).

A handful of fixes to the user interface were made. The toolbar doesn't float over personal tools after opening a dialog or the inspector (bug 52441http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52441). Toolbars were also re-written to be collapsible/expandable, with room for more icons. Buttons in dialogs can now be activated using the Tab and Shift+Tab key commands (bug 50047). This saves time for editors, because you don't need to take your hands off the keyboard to click a button. We fixed a handful of bugs that affected only certain articles or certain browsers, including toolbar buttons in Firefox (bug 51986) and dialog panels that didn't always scroll correctly (bug 51739). Bugs with undo/redo getting confused have been fixed (bug 52113http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52113).

Images, in addition to getting references displaying correctly, also saw improvements with a set-empty |link= parameter no longer corrupted (51963). We corrected thumbnail images' display so that they look don't wrong in some contexts (bug 51995). Inserted images no longer explicitly set their alignment, but instead inherit the default position in compliance with the Manual of Style (bug 51851).

More edit notices, warnings, and metadata like information about Pending Changes on an article now appear as appropriate (bug 49699). When new articles are created, users are now shown the <newarticletext> message (bug 51459). VisualEditor now handles templates that set "meta" items (like a category) and nothing else better (bug 51322). If the database is locked when a user tries to save with VisualEditor, they now get a message telling them as such and an opportunity to try again, rather than a silent failure (bug 51636).

When you save the page, having the default preference set to "mark all my edits as minor by default" no longer overrides the setting in the save dialog (bug 51515). If you open VisualEditor from a section edit link, the section's title will be pre-filled in in the edit summary box when you go to save it (bug 50872). The size of the save dialog box in the Monobook skin has been fixed (bug 50058). Also, wikipage content handlers like sortable tables are re-run automatically after saving (bug 51565http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51565).

A very early version of the mathematics equation editor is now available for testing on mw:Mediawiki. If you would like to help improve the user interface for math editor, please test out the extension at mw:Mediawiki:Sandbox and leave your comments directly at the discussion page for the Math Node User Interface at Mediawiki. You should be able to use your regular username and password should to login to Mediawiki.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Sou Boyy awards Sue with a Special Barnstar for her Outstanding Contribution to Wikipedia and the Global Community Worldwide. My very best, Sou Boyy (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Chelsea Manning's talk page. As a transsexual wikipedian, it really means a lot to see that you recognize and respect how trans people choose to be identified. I've been appalled at the response by some major media sources recently - they will report that she wants be be called by her new name with feminine pronouns, then go on and finish the article with the wrong name and pronouns. The media is bringing trans issues to the attention of a lot of people who have never thought about it before, and by ignoring her wishes they are teaching their readers that it is okay for them to misgender trans people in general. It is wonderful to see that Wikipedia changed the article so quickly and that you personally support the change. I hope that Wikipedia and the media sources covering this properly will help make people think twice about how they understand trans people, and will help make the world a better place for all of us. Thanks again! Jessica Ryan (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Hi Sue

This is just a courtesy note to say that I referred to you in a discussion at WP:ANI about the possible sanction of an editor for their comments in the debates on the naming of the article on Chelsea Manning.

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_closure; the diffs of my 2 relevant edits are [4] and [5]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

You inspire people![edit]

Hello Sue,

I just sttoped by because I wanted to say thank you. You are an magnificent WikiWoman and real woman. It's great what you're doing.
I've always wanted to be a journalist and after reading your profile I am 100% sure that that's exactly what I want to do with my life, becoming a Journalist. Thanks for being such an inspiration. Miss Bono [zootalk] 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Protecting child editors[edit]

Sue, have you read the latest blog post on Wikipediocracy? The adult WP editor who privately contacted the 11-year old has posted here on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Someone not using his real name, it was an edit conflict. I don't know if you fixed it or I did but regardless, it was unintentional, and it's okay now :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity disorder[edit]

Hey, Sue. Just to let you know, you should be a bit more careful while editing regarding GID and autogynephilia; it's a recurring issue involving COIs and POVs that most recently surfaced here and here, among others. I'd also express concern when treating autogynephilia uncritically, especially given that WPATH doesn't seem to give it any currency. Sceptre (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Want to help WLM? The last images needed in SF[edit]

I remember you contributed last year! The first 3 in the list are probably best done via archive search, so are not really WLM, but the last one has your name written all over it!

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] Name on the Register[2] Image Date listed[3] Location Neighborhood Description
52 Frederick Griffings's (ship) Upload image
February 1, 1982
(#82002248)
Address Restricted
37°48′11″N 122°24′08″W / 37.803°N 122.4021°W / 37.803; -122.4021 (Frederick Griffings's (ship))
Fisherman's Wharf


84 KING PHILIP (ship) and REPORTER (schooner) Shipwreck Site Upload image
May 8, 1986
(#86001014)
Address Restricted
San Francisco King Philip and Reporter shipwreck sites.


93 The Lydia Upload image
July 16, 1981
(#81000173)
Address Restricted
San Francisco Whaling bark


169 U.S. Appraisers Stores and Immigration Station Upload image
August 13, 2013
(#13000590)
630 Sansome St.
37°47′47″N 122°24′06″W / 37.796278°N 122.401764°W / 37.796278; -122.401764 (U.S. Appraisers Stores and Immigration Station)
Financial District

The dignity of a BLP subject[edit]

Hello. I've just read your submission to the Manning RfAr. I'm here to ask you to take office action regarding the title. The present title is clearly insulting and false, and you are failing in your commitment to the board every second that BLP violation stays in place. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the "office" procedure, a formal complaint would be needed to take such an action. However, I second the request that the Wikimedia Foundation resolves the urgent BLP situation as soon as possible. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
OK. I see from WP:OFFICE that office action is usually taken in response to a hysterical phone call to the Foundation. Let's not call it an office action, then, let's just call it Sue doing her job. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The present title is Manning's birth name and legal name. It may not be the name Manning wishes people would use, but that hardly makes it false. While I would support changing the current title to Manning's preferred name, an office action would be excessive and, honestly, kind of annoying since there are far worst things on BLPs that are not going to be addressed by the Foundation. Manning may be displeased at the birth name being the title rather than the desired name, but the latter is given priority in the actual article and we refer to him with the female pronouns in the article itself so any insult is surely lessened.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
So, we might be more insulting. That's your justification. (I see you still use the male pronoun.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not presenting a justification, only stating that your suggestion this one thing is so egregiously bad that there needs to be an emergency office action is overblown. Bradley Manning is his legal name and birth name so it isn't false and we use Chelsea Manning in the actual article. As I said, I think we should use Chelsea Manning as the title, but it is not office action territory.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sue has made it clear that we are failing in our duty to take account of the dignity of our subject when we can do so without affecting the quality of the article. She has both the power and the duty to fix that. It may cost her some allies and cause a little upset, but she should do what she's being paid to do, and what her principles tell her to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Anthony, of the myriad issues facing WP and other WMF projects, you really feel this one is the most critical, urgent, and most in need of WMF involvement? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, actually. It's a very visible example of the project's institutionalised indifference toward its subjects and readers, born out of the unique demographic that has flocked to this project and grasped its levers. This toxic unempathic alienating ethos is just what such a crowd could be expected to produce, and it is at the root of all other issues here. We need to be told to behave respectfully toward others by somebody with normal social sensibility. I think that's Sue.
Sue, the greatest legacy you could leave Wikipedia would be firm guidance, and compulsion where necessary, in dealing respectfully and empathically with our readers and subjects. We'll never do it on our own, given who/what we mostly are. And, again, you have a professional obligation to the Foundation (presuming the board meant what it said about BLPs) and far more importantly, a moral obligation to our BLP subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, this is not within Ms. Gardner's power or authority to do. A office action will IMO never happen here, but in the extremely unlikely case that it did, there'd be a palace revolt. At the end of the day, it is just one minority group's opinion on how they wish to be addressed; it is not a human rights issue, nor is it something so critically dire (e.g. when the WMF had to step in to ban a sex offender from the Commons last year) that practically mandates a Foundation intervention. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. How do you see this revolt playing out exactly? Let's say Sue tells en.Wikipedia that it may not gratuitously and knowingly (at least on the part of those who actually know the first thing about gender issues) insult Manning as we presently do. What would happen then, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you recall what happened to Jimbo when he tried to run roughshod at the Commons a few years ago? Tarc (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't follow the denouement. But Sue's not Jimbo, and this is en.Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain it to me on my talk page, as Sue isn't bighting here. Sorry to have occupied your talk page like this, Sue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course, instead of trying to stamp out fires like this one, if the WMF were to get involved, they should try to address the big picture...i.e. establishing an administrative framework of Wikipedia in which content decisions are made in a thorough, consistent, and non-arbitrary manner. That would mean giving WP some adult supervision which, so far, the WMF appears reluctant to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Callousness and autism form the root of the problem here, they're not some distracting epiphenomena. Our policy and practice doesn't presently reflect the foundation's humane BLP resolution but once that's addressed, the core remaining issues are our contempt for our readers (specifically regarding gratuitous offensive imagery) and our toxic, dysfunctional internal social norms - particularly our appallingly puerile boneheaded "debating" on article talk pages.
I don't mean to imply that the latter two will be easy, but I believe they will be enough, and larger top-down structural changes shouldn't be necessary. Again, though, a self-selected bunch of mostly tools and misfits will not achieve this on its own. And Sue may be gone in a month, so this is something for her successor. (But today you can oblige this project to conform to the Foundation's BLP resolution!) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Anthony, you may wish to adjust your wording up there, as at the moment the "callousness and autism form the root of the problem here" line reads like you're calling other editors with whom you disagree autistic. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm calling the project autistic. It's a hard truth to take on board, I know, but until that's acknowledged, there's no devising an effective management strategy, I'm afraid. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yesterday, Manning's lawyer submitted a formal request to Obama to be pardoned, using the terms "Bradley Manning" and "he". If Manning herself and Manning's legal team recognizes the complexity of this shift, especially happening at this particular moment in time, and is able to manage the subtlety and even be willing to use the "insulting" name, and they aren't storming around demanding everyone change everything right! now!, why can't you just take a chill pill and realize that in the fullness of time, sources *will* come around, and the page will be moved. If you are so damn concerned about BLPs, why don't you tackle the thousands of women who are still ghettoized through their categories - remember the media shitstorm? Are you fixing that BLP issue Anthony?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is why Anthony's exhortations need to be taken with a large grain of salt. Fifteen months after a huge RFC about the Muhammad images, he's still whinging about how consensus went against the self-appointed "conscience of the community". --NeilN talk to me 20:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a lot of inexcusable behavior at the Manning article's talk page, and I have little patience for some of the arguments that were made there (and elsewhere) to keep "Bradley" in the title. However, it would be highly inappropriate for any office action to be taken on the matter. The day that WMF officials begin unilaterally intervening in content disputes and arguments over the application of WP:BLP—or any other policy founded in community consensus—I'll know it's time to put the "retired" banner on my user page. I wonder if it has occurred to the petitioner here that there may not always be an open-minded, thoughtful executive director at the helm of the Foundation. If Sue were to do what's been asked of her in this thread, it would set a dangerous precedent that could spell terrible trouble for the project somewhere down the road. Incidentally, I think the use of the word "autistic" in this discussion is quite ill-advised, both for the reason Tarc mentions and because it may promote misconceptions and stereotypes about people with autism. Rivertorch (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any shortage of open-minded idealism surrounding the WMF projects. Unfortunately, sensitivity to transgender and womens' rights won't get WP and and Commons administered better. What that will take is some organizational acumen and decisive action. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. Wikipedia is not unlike the larger world. If the project had existed 50 years ago, there'd be any amount of nonsense going on over topics having to do with racial minorities. Go back 20 years further and we'd be fighting an uphill battle to remove anti-Semitism from articles. Since I've been editing here, I have encountered any amount of offensive drivel on homosexuality-related topics, and I've often found the community's response—or lack thereof—deeply frustrating. But I do believe things are slowly getting better on that front. More slowly than I'd like, to be sure, but I keep telling myself to be patient. In most First World countries, the war over gay rights is over and homophobia will be relegated entirely to the margins within another couple of generations. There are people who are having a lot of trouble accepting that, and we can safely assume that some of them are Wikipedia editors, but they're on the wrong side of history and with each year that passes they are less capable of causing serious problems (and in many cases are less inclined to even want to).
Transgender rights almost certainly constitute the next frontier in human rights, and that's already reflected in what's been happening here. I'm not trans and I don't know a lot about trans issues, but I'm old enough to remember what it felt like to be treated dismissively (or worse) because I was gay, and I think there must be parallels. As much as I'd like to immediately drag Wikipedia into the future (or even the present, as the case may be), I believe in the idea of consensus, of people discovering for themselves (albeit with much gentle persuasion and prodding) that they need to reevaluate their long-held assumptions. When they discover it for themselves, they tend to be reasonable, cooperative, and kind. When it's forced on them, they balk and turn stubborn and stop listening. That's true in real life, and it's true here as well. "Decisive action" likely would alienate many people who are great assets to the community. That would be too bad, because some of those people could wind up on the side of the angels if we'd only be patient and give them a chance to help form a broad consensus instead. Either way, we will get where we're going, but one way involves a lot less animosity and honors the collaborative, community-based spirit of the project. Rivertorch (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
hey folks -- just a quick response. I'm sure everyone is aware of this by now, but we have no plans to take an Office Action on the Manning article title, because Office actions are reserved for legal situations not editorial ones. I personally believe, as I blogged, that the article should be named Chelsea Manning but that's my personal opinion as an editor and not the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation, which doesn't get involved in editorial discussions or decision-making. That said, I do *not* mind hosting this conversation here -- I've been reading the conversation and have found it interesting. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for September 5[edit]

This Thursday's VisualEditor update was mostly about stability and performance improvements, and some preparatory work for major planned improvements, along with bug fixes for non-English language support and right-to-left text. Everything that the English Wikipedia received today has been running on Mediawiki for a week already.

Officially, the problem with the link inspector not linking to a specific section on a page (bug 53219) was fixed in this release, although that critical patch actually appeared here earlier.

A number of bugs related to copy-and-paste functionality were fixed (48604, bug 50043, bug 53362, bug 51538, among others). Full rich copy-and-paste from external sources into VisualEditor is expected "soon".

In other fixes, you can no longer add empty ref tags (<ref/>) (bug 53345). Selecting both an image and some text, and then trying to add a link, previously deleted the selected image and the text. This was fixed in bug 50127. There was another problem related to using arrow keys to move the cursor next to an inline image that was fixed (bug 53507).

Looking ahead: The next planned upgrade is scheduled for next Thursday, and you should expect to find a redesigned toolbar with drop-down menus that include room for references, templates, underline, strikethrough, superscript, subscript, and code formatting. There will also be keyboard shortcuts for setting the format (paragraph vs section headings).

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being determined at this time. Generally speaking, languages that depend on the input method editor are not going to receive VisualEditor this month. The current target date is Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

Dear Sue Gardner.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

hey Seddon, thanks for this note. I'm planning to contribute to the ArbCom case workshop subpage, and I have read the Guide but still have some questions. I'm going to lay out a few assumptions and questions below and would be grateful if you (or anyone, actually) could give me some help.
  1. Checking an assumption: it's fine for any user to add new proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions on the workshop subpage, right?
  2. Checking an assumption: I ought not to directly edit another editor's proposal, but rather comment below it, right?
  3. Question: I tend to think it'd be more helpful for the arbitrators if editors like me commented on and tried to help refine somebody else's existing proposal (thereby working towards consensus) rather than creating my own proposal (creating more divergence). Is that basically true?
  4. That said, I'm assuming the proposals are the property of the editor who created them. If the editor who created a proposal is not open to it being changed, it does not change. Right? (What I mean is, the proposal doesn't end up constituted of whatever gets the most support on the page. It ends up being whatever the original proposer is most comfortable with.)
Just want to check in on this stuff before I participate -- thanks for any answers you can provide :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess Seddon didn't notice your question, so just to say all your assumptions seem correct, although re Q 4) it doesn't affect the outcome much whether or not the proposer accepts any changes to their workshop solutions, unless they happen to be an Arb. Just to add, while there might be little value in creating your own workshop proposals, it might help to add your own brief evidence section. Going by the 3 or 4 Arb cases I've contributed to, the Arbitrators seem to base their solutions more on the evidence submissions than on anything proposed in the workshop. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Léon: The Professional[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Léon: The Professional. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Legobot (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear from people who considered stopping editing due to the Manning article title controversy[edit]

In the discussions about what to name the article about Chelsea Manning, a number of editors have said they've been really unhappy with the way other editors were talking to them --- some, to the point where they said they were considering leaving Wikipedia.

From what I could tell, those expressions of pain and anger mostly got ignored, which struck me as strange. In other communities I'm a part of participants mostly try to avoid hurting each other, and when someone is made upset to the point of quitting, the people who are left behind generally express regret and dismay. Even --or maybe especially-- in cases in which the person who left was in some way unusual or an outlier. I think that's wise: communities have a tendency to narrow over time into groupthink and systemic bias, and diversity safeguards against that.

(This is particularly relevant and important to me because the Wikimedia Foundation has of course identified editor retention as the single biggest problem facing Wikipedia. Our top priority is to attract and retain more editors. And importantly, our research tells us that one of the main reasons people cite for quitting is unpleasant interactions with other editors.)

In thinking about this, I decided I wanted to open a spot on my userpage in which people who'd considered leaving Wikipedia because of the Manning dispute could --if they want to-- tell the story of what happened. What specifically about the way you were treated made you unhappy, and what would've needed to have happened to have fixed it. Is there anything other editors could have said or done. If you kept editing afterwards, what motivated you. What could tip the balance for you in future, either way.

You can name people or quote comments if you want, but for the purposes of this I think it probably makes sense not to --- it risks re-staging the same conversations over here, and also I am most interested in what other people could do to help. FWIW I'm not exactly sure what I'm planning to do with this. But at a minimum, I think it'd be useful reading in terms of helping editors figure out how they can best support their colleagues. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I fit into this category. For me it was the accusation of hate speech - to me that seemed to be a legal threat, since hate speech is illegal in many countries. The fact that this accusation came from an administrator really makes me question the direction wikipedia is going. I was also unimpressed with admins - yourself included - making off-wiki criticisms about the episode. For various reasons I didn't want to get involved to the point of mentioning this at arbitration - in any case, off-wiki conduct isn't usually subject to sanctions. I don't mean to attack you; I just want to communicate how your actions made me feel. And none of this concerns the way I was treated personally, but it did mean I did not have the freedom to say what I thought were reasonable comments. I've been editing here for quite a few years, with a solid editing history, but this episode has brought me to something of a crossroads regarding my place on Wikipedia. I'm still thinking this through, but since you asked, here you are. StAnselm (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I just had a horrible thought occur to me - I checked, and have discovered that you're not an admin. I'm so sorry. The point still stands regarding my feelings, but I had jumped to conclusions. And maybe I have expectations about admins that is not in keeping with wikipedia ethos and/or policy. StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As a counterbalance to whatever other people say, I started editing again as a result of this controversy reminding me that editing Wikipedia was a thing. We'll see how long I stick around, but yeah: as long as it's kept within sane limits, the drama's part of the hobby. --erachima talk 06:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I monitored the Manning page and discussion, but did not contribute. I have relevant experience and knowledge of this area, but did not want to get involved in such a hostile space. In particular the accusations of bias/conflict of interest towards anyone with any knowledge and experience was completely off-putting. MRSC (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. I'm not totally discouraged, after all I'm commenting now. Just sick of seeing the same problem for the last 7 years. It's a bigger problem than either the "Disagree with me? You're a Bigot!" and "How dare these Trans subhuman filth say I'm engaging in Hate Speech!" memes. Both sides are full of smug self-righteousness, one because Social Justice, the other because Exterminate the Perverts. Neither see the other as deserving any respect or consideration, even though on other issues they could disagree amicably. These memes disgust the sane on both sides. Meanwhile those who know their sh1t on the subject are hit with COI charges. OK, I take that back, I *am* totally discouraged and will likely not contribute again. No point. Zoe Brain (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sue. I've emailed you on this matter a few weeks ago; I'd rather not expand here. Sceptre (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sceptre -- I got your mail, as well as a few others. I think I've replied to everyone who mailed me privately. Thanks for sharing your thoughts -- they were really useful. Sue Gardner (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was never much more than a drive by editor, but now I'm not even that. Wikipedia is supposed to strive for accuracy, not to enshrining right-wing Trans and homophobic rubbish. Refusing to title Chelsea's page properly because of personal prejudices about what constitutes a real man or a real woman just reduces the whole project to the level of goddamned tv tropes or memory alpha. As soon as Chelsea Manning announced that she was Chelsea and not her former name and gender, it should have been changed and left changed. I'm not even going to try and correct inaccuracy if all we're doing is publishing rubbish of whoever can weasel loud enough to get their prejudice on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.159.12 (talkcontribs)

Yep. This. No point. Zoe Brain (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw the Manning article title change quickly and was pleased and unsurprised. I did not add it to my watchlist, for lack of concern and time.

I was surprised to see in the news last week that it had been changed back. I've since tried to follow the issue…but I've been frustrated with how unclear and verbose the process is, and I've been concerned with how uncivil the comments have been. And one has only so much time to give to Wikipedia.

It's difficult to see people with either no medical training or no personal experience contend what the subject's name and pronoun (present and past) should be.

The somewhat related question of religious or artistic name-changes is interesting and may be valid, and I have previously wondered if the common-name policy might be faulty for such, but I feel less qualified to speak there.

Startswithj (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought from the beginning that the article title change without consensus was on iffy ground in terms of policy compliance, but was ultimately the correct thing to do; however, the amount of vitriol and trans-hate from some people on the talk page was both offensive and disheartening. Those openly questioning the existence and legitimacy of trans identity seemed to be accepted as legitimate participants in the discussion.

Overall, I feel like it descended from a legitimate discussion over policy (whether the initial title change was compliant with policy) into an anti-trans rantfest. While I've decided to continue editing Wikipedia, I'm going to refrain from participating in debates where I feel that my identity - and the identity of millions of other trans people - is questioned. Kiralexis (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I am one of the folks who have considered leaving over this dispute. The foundation, Arbcom's and the community's consistent failure to define and enforce WP:CIVILITY has made this project hostile for editors who use logic and reason above emotion. The emotional outburst, in fact, have been consistently condoned for their factual correctness with little regard for their substance and delivery. The inability of some editors to separate hate speech from legitimate discourse and the inability of editors to separate reasonable criticism from vitriol is, frankly, beyond the pale. Your comments in this discussion had two effects, you established that enforced points of view can be legitimate, undermining core policy and foundation principals, and you empowered those who cast wide nets and polarized the discussion. I've very disappointed in you, Sue. You should've take a page out of Jimbo's book and commented about how to discuss the matter rather than picking a side. For this project to succeed, we need to be able to trust in your ability to guide but not direct. This dispute likely would've never occured had the procedure for move discussions taken place properly; and yet it's glossed over. Those arguing that the move had to happen immediately or else it would've been harmful should reevaluate the effect the immediate move actually did have in that now the article is locked into Bradley. Had time and care been taken, the end effect would've been an article properly titled Chelsea Manning by this point, a content community, and less harm to Chelsea. I hope you consider your role in the next dispute and I hope your efforts will provide guidance that will temper emotions and push toward reason and logic above activism, hatred, anger, and fear. We need to build respect for each other in the community, build bridges instead of walls. I've always tried to reach a hand out to my opponents. Someone in your position here had a lot of potential to do that. I'm available to discuss the matter at your convenience if you'd like.--v/r - TP 02:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @TP - re " should reevaluate the effect the immediate move actually did have in that now the article is locked into Bradley" - Hear hear! The tragedy here is that the folks who held the pro-Chelsea POV tried to lead rather than follow. Had they just been a bit more humble and sought a consensus based move, this entire load of shenanigans probably wouldn't have have occurred and their viewpoint would have won out. @Sue Gardner - Your question seems to suppose that this debate caused some obvious breaches of WP:CIVIL. If that's the case, could you point to them so that I can take them to the regular channels for this kind of thing (e.g. ANI or AE). If you can't point to them, then why start this discussion? WP has ways to cope incivility. Your asking for complaints here seems to subvert the normal channels. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • NickCT, I'm interested in this statement of yours ("Had they just been a bit more humble and sought a consensus based move, this entire load of shenanigans probably wouldn't have have occurred and their viewpoint would have won out"). Do you honestly believe that if folks who wanted the page moved to CM had proposed the move on the talk page that we wouldn't have had the BM-titlers and the CM-titlers descend onto the page? NW (Talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's always fun to play what-if, so let's play along. What-if, instead of moving and locking, Gerard said "Hmm... Manning's name is widely known, he's certainly not going to be harmed by it sticking around here a few more days, and he's in prison anyway and not browsing wikipedia, so let's wait to what sources do" - so you start a low-grade discussion on talk but no formal move... and then after 7 days or so, once you've built up an arsenal of sources and wire services and so on that have switched, you propose a move. If they had done this, many !votes for Bradley would have been for Chelsea, as I'm assuming they will in the next move. The move-war+lock at the "Wrong version" pissed people off, and it happened BEFORE most sources had moved, and people wrote articles celebrating the fact that wikipedia moved before most sources had moved. It made it look like an amazingly clever team of top editors had quickly convened and make the "right" decision and "Wikipedia" had done the right thing, and then, consensus came back swinging and you saw the result. In the NY Times, the top editors can get together, and make a decision, and it will stick, but that doesn't work here - a small cabal of very clever people still doesn't win out over the masses - that is the model. The end result was, wikipedia looked silly, going both ways. If we would have waited a week or two (like our friends at Brittanica), and then moved by consensus, no-one would have beat us up too badly, and interesting articles about how wikipedia is a tertiary source and we needed to wait until other sources moved would have been written exposing how wikipedia actually works, vs the bullshit articles that were written instead (e.g. Omg, wikipedia is so trans* progressive! Wait, ZOMG, Wikipedia is so trans* regressive!!?? and then, on October 7, Finally, wikipedia is so trans* progressive, again).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand, I really am. Are you saying that people chose BM instead of CM out of spite for David Gerard and Morwen? NW (Talk) 04:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying I think the bulk of people chose BM because of COMMONNAME - which shifted rather quickly as it turns out. Nonetheless, the fact that the article had already been moved w/o discussion drew more flies to the soup as it were. When you do something to piss off your opponent, no matter how right you are, they are unlikely to be convinced by your arguments. So some people who may have switched sides, or taken a more expansive view, I think came in hardened and annoyed. Just MHO. We see a number of people !voting against another page move at Talk:Alexis Reich because they are angry and doubt my motives (ignoring evidence and policy), so the evidence is there that people behave this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@Obi-Wan Kenobi & NW - I think Obi expresses the case well here. I was definitely was one of those "hardened and annoyed" folks.
Note that near the end of the last RM discussion, a lot of the COMMONNAMERs were saying "Hey! CM wasn't the commonname when the initial move to CM was made, but now it appears that it is" (for the record, I was partially in that camp). That strongly strongly indicates to me, that when the initial move to CM was made it was wrong and unsupported by consensus, but by the end of the RM discussion, it might have been right. "if folks who wanted the page moved to CM had proposed the move on the talk page" my feeling is that conversation would have eventually played out in their favor. NickCT (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Right from the start the conversation was transphobic, and I do mean comparing "being transgender" to "thinking that one is a dog". These comments came regularly through the conversation, again, and again, and again. I'm transsexed, and the first time you see one of these comments it takes me back to trapped on the subway two football players sneering at me calling me a dog no way to get out or that time buying a sandwich someone behind me shouts "What is *that*?" get out get to safety. It shuts you out of the discussion, hard. If you label these comments for what they are, transphobic derailing of the conversation, you get shouted at and people say you are as bad as the person who attacked the conversation. I have edited wikipedia before on my PhD research topic, but... why would I contribute to a project that does not respect the fundamentals of my identity? There is no way during conversation to tell whether a comment has widespread support or widespread opprobrium, no 'karma'. Put it like this: the front page of Reddit is a safer space than Wikipedia talk pages. 7daysahead (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@7daysahead: I'm sympathetic to your feelings, but do you feel it makes you a better person to label them when they make those comments? Or have you allowed them to bring you down to their level? Wouldn't you rather take the high road? We have venues to get these things addressed when you see them that doesn't require you to fight back. Venues like WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, WP:Arbcom, WP:DR and even here on Sue's or Jimbo's pages. Wouldn't you rather be the better person? Where does calling them transphobic get you? Do you think they feel bad? Heck, they probably want you to lash out. You do yourself more credit by not sinking, holding your head up, and letting their comments seal their own fate.--v/r - TP 01:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No, TP. Being called transphobic is nothing at all like experiencing transphobia. It is not a slur to correctly identify someone's actions. I am not ashamed to speak when someone uses language which is hurtful. Please consider the weighting you give to these two hurts: me, being dragged back to a time when I was in fear for my life, and an editor whose opinion is not immediately accepted. 7daysahead (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm disappointed. Accepting your premise that calling someone transphobic is not as bad as experiencing transphobia, not as bad still doesn't equate to good. I would expect that dignified people would not allow themselves to sink any degree below their character. Just because you haven't sunk as low as someone who would make you fear for your life doesn't mean that calling someone names isn't also low.--v/r - TP 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here again, but I can't let that one go. Identifying problem behavior, such as the use of transphobic language, does not constitute "calling someone names". You've made it very clear that you don't think the use of terms like "transphobic" and "homophobic" are helpful to describe comments made by Wikipedians. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion, and in at least a few instances I think you may be right. Nonetheless, I hope you'll try to understand that many of your fellow editors find the terms usefully explanatory because they concisely convey the nature of certain comments and indicate precisely why they are objectionable and disruptive. If a white supremacist SPA has posted offensive comments, are we to eschew saying the comments are racist, for fear of being accused of namecalling? Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, "Where does calling them transphobic get you? Do you think they feel bad? Heck, they probably want you to lash out. You do yourself more credit by not sinking, holding your head up, and letting their comments seal their own fate." If you wish to describe comments as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, theophobic, ect, the proper form is to do so in accordance to WP:NPA by taking the issues to the relevant noticeboards with serious evidence to support such a claim. Laying the accusation out, alone, unsupported, as a retaliation to offense, is not at all helpful or productive to the encyclopedia and only serves to make the person making the accusation feel better. However, their 'feel better' is short lived because two things happen, 1) The editor who made the original offending statement never gets taken to account at a noticeboard, and 2) The editor making the accusation is now at risk of a block themselves. So, as I continue to say, take the higher road and take it to a noticeboard instead of name calling (defined in the context of my voice as "Laying the accusation out, alone, unsupported, as a retaliation to offense").--v/r - TP 18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I wasn't referring to either "feeling better" or "retaliation". I think we're talking past each other, and I don't suppose Sue's talk page is the place to iron that out (if there is such a place). Rivertorch (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My experience has been one of enlightenment and education. I used a poor choice of words out of ignorance. I chose to say "Chelsea Manning does not exist."[6]. This was not intended to say "exist" as a person but rather "notable" as a name for the person that committed felonies. This was before any notable sources had adopted an MOS definition that would use "Chelsea" to describe her. Since them I am struck by the multitude of experiences and conflict within the trans* community. Even on Wikipeida talk pages I watched a discussion between two self-identified trans women arguing whether "trans woman" or "transwoman" was the correct term (one term implied a third gender while the other did not). On the one hand there are people that are post-transition females that are very wary of "men" defining what it means to be female. I've listed such at the Arbcom evidence page with links to trans* individuals that have different understanding of trans* issues than have been expressed by advocates here. On the other hand, there are accounts of transgender persons that suffer needlessly due to conditions they have no control over. This has included me in the debate as I was "labeled" but I believe the label to be inaccurate. Unfortunately people don't wear signs that say "narcissist" or "transgender" or "straight" or "gay" or "male" or "female". It would be much easier if we all wore signs that said exactly who we are. As for this experience, I am at an impasse as it's not clear to me where Manning should exist. I think I feel somewhat like Christine Benvenuto, who we don't have an article one but wrote about her experience regarding transgender issues and was married to Joy Ladin which we do have an article on. I was struck by an account of a court appointed psychologist that said Joy posed no danger to her children but would not read any accounts or articles on trans* issues that the psychologist recommended [7]. Why wouldn't she do that? Christine was shouted down at her book reading in Amherst [8] by a professor that didn't even read the book before the protest. I don't like people being shouted down or excluded from the debate because their views aren't accepted even though their experiences are real. --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  • One thing that really bothers me is that during debates over topics that touch on homosexuality or transgender issues, there are often ad hominem accusations of homophobia and transphobia leveled at editors, usually without strong evidence to back it up. What is really distressing is that WP's administration never does anything about these violations of AGF and NPA. WP effectively gives a free pass to editors who make these unfair and hurtful accusations. It is one reason why I have, for the most part, given up on Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'm personally more concerned with the hostile environment this creates to LGBT editors than a few hurt feelings that people who have likely never been discriminated against have when someone brings up their privileges. Sceptre (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you know the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right". Being a member of an oppressed class doesn't grant you special privilleges here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sceptre: I'm curious that, as AFAIK, I fit into the "never been discriminated against" category. I usually feel a certain anonymity with WP. I've had experiences of exclusion as I am not from the country nor speak the native language of my co-workers, but not to the level I would describe as discrimination. At the same time, I've never knowingly experienced any kind of privilege. On WP, I've never expressed gender, sexual preference, age, nationality, etc. In what way have you experienced a hostile environment as an LGBT editor? WP seems to a fairly tolerant place overall and I personally haven't experienced a hostile environment. Can you expand your hostile experience? --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    I said who have likely never been discriminated against, which reflects the results of various editorship surveys showing that Wikipedia editors are predominately English speaking college-educated men in OECD countries: those bestow a lot of privileges on people. With regards to hostile environments, the thread on Jimbo's talk is worth a read. In essence, there are many cisgender editors who are effectively saying "journalistic unions are wrong, healthcare professionals are wrong, judges are wrong, I'm right" based on nothing but an apparent animus against transgender people. Even where there is no animus, the fact that we're allowing people who know very little about the topic form a consensus is problematic in itself. Even more so when they're apparently more "neutral" than people who have said knowledge. The moving back of the article to the previous name does send out a message to transgender people that "your identity is predicated on our acceptance", and becomes more worrying when there are reliable sources who will likely never accept it.
    To expand on that, Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, often follows the sources, and there's nothing wrong with that in theory. But theory doesn't really work when you're dealing with living people and disprivileged groups. COMMONNAME has long being problematic, reducing thoughtful discussions to search result comparisons, as if we're so afraid of original research that we can't even read the sources, we just slap a {{cite web}} on it. And when it comes to living people, it becomes a recipe for disaster.
    By resorting to COMMONNAME as a sort-of-guillotine, we abdicate to sources. But what if there is institutional problems with the sources? Lord Justice Leveson remarked last year that transphobia is still rampant in the British media despite the industry's ethical code. And it's a problem that extends to the most progressive news sources in society and can often prove deadly. And such abdication of responsibility must come with the realisation that we can become complicit in perpetuating this systemic violence.
    I'm assuming good faith and applying Hanlon's razor here. While many editors aren't transphobic, they are showing signs that they probably don't understand the first thing about trans issues. Which is understandable in itself, but caution must be advised when editing in topics where you haven't the faintest clue. I don't know anything about phonemic orthography, so I won't edit articles relating to it. And so too must we resist the temptation to edit articles whose subjects have been in the news; it never ends terribly well, even if you are familiar with the topic.
    And a lot of the comments derided as transphobic by other editors are fundamentally based in a miscomprehension of gender identity - that all the markers of gender in the body are immutable, synchronous, and dyadic. Which is what we've been taught, really, and is what our culture has ingrained into us. Furthermore, a lot of people just aren't aware of transgender issues the same way they're aware of gender discrimination, racism, or homophobia. Perhaps a better word for this state of mind could be "transignostic"?
    The worrying part is when we're seeing people deride the move as being "political correctness gone mad" - there, it crosses the line between ignorance and malice. 99% of the time, "political correctness" is used as a boogeyman to oppose all sorts of things because it doesn't fit their political viewpoint (and indeed, political debates around transgenderism typically devolve into accusing trans people of being rapists, pedophiles, or otherwise sexually deviant). And the other 1%? Well, we're out of hope when one of the few editors who should know all about the phrase joins in with the 99%. And worse still is when we're seeing people say, without irony, "just because I think I'm a vegetable doesn't mean I am one". It's not just one thing, it's a lot of things, and it all adds up to hostility and death by a thousand cuts. Sceptre (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner, I am a editor on Wikipedia, and was working very hard on improving the Dance Moms tv show page. I got the article semi protected and was happily working away on it when I left a comment about Bradley Manning. All I said on the Bradley manning talk page was that I believe we should use his legal name, since he has not had a legal name change yet. I think I stated this maybe 3 times. Soon after, I got a message on my talk page that read-"You've written in a few places on the Bradley/Chelsea Manning talk page that it's fine to use the name Bradley because Manning hasn't legally changed her name yet. However, many trans people consider it rude to use the person's birth name in a way that implies that is their proper name (that is, in a way that suggests their new identity is in some sense false or improper). So generally people aren't asserting that it is legally incorrect to use Bradley Manning, but many are asserting that it is impolite, certainly to the subject, who was requested use of Chelsea from now on, and generally to trans people at large. In short: we're not saying "this is her legal name," we're saying "this is her preferred name, please be polite and use it!" I had to ask the person who left the message if the "we're" was referring to Wikipedia as a whole, or was this a Wikipedia rule. He replied back the following-"To be clear, "we" here is "myself and some others that are arguing in favour of CM use". There isn't a special case policy saying you should name a trans person's article a particular way". First of all, I don't like to be told "this is her preferred name, please be polite and use it!" This really pissed me off and I have not edited any articles since. I'm so tired of having to act like Wikipedia is some type of school, where if you voice an opinion,someone's feelings may get hurt. Or even worse, when I voiced my opinion in a polite way, I was told what to do. Being told what to do does not hurt my feelings one bit,but being told what to do by the pro Trans pushers pisses me off. So just because I voiced an opinion about a legal name change I am told I need to "Be polite and just use it". I think everyone coming out of the woodwork on the pro Trans side needs to realize that just because someone dares to disagree with them about something like a legal name change,does not make that person "Transphobic" or whatever word they label anyone that does not agree. BeckiGreen (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh jeez, this was me. I certainly didn't mean to drive you away from WP; I thought your comments sounded like you thought we were trying to arrive at Manning's proper legal name, whereas largely the pro-Chelsea arguments were about using a preferred name. I didn't intend that "be polite and use it!" remark as a direct command, but rather as a potted summary of (one line of) pro-Chelsea argument. FWIW I don't think you're a transphobe. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I was never involved in this discussion, although I've been involved in some efforts to change MOS:IDENTITY so it doesn't create ridiculous situations like the one with John Mark Karr/Alexis Reich, but I will say this. The concern about people's' feelings here seem grossly misplaced, as we are not a therapy group here to placate people. We would never allow the article on the Ainu people to be moved to Utari, even though the term Ainu has strong derogatory connotations, because it would be unnecessarily confusing and blatantly activist; therefore, although I personally use Utari, I'm quite content to use Ainu in articlespace. If you want to talk about real possibilities of WP causing harm, I've been doing nothing but editing an article which could cause a someone far less equipped than transgender people very serious harm (see Genie (feral child) and the split I'm working on in my userspace). Coming from editing that article, I can't say I take the gloom-and-doom, meta:MPOV arguments from LGBT people about harm is all that convincing; the least of Manning's concerns while sitting at Fort Leavenworth is going to be what the Wikipedia article is titled. And lest you think I'm just the white heterosexual male commenting (which I am), I also have PDD-NOS which has made my life very difficult; I was mercilessly picked on in school, far more than the gay kids in my middle school were, so I know how it is to be discriminated against because, well, I am and have been. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi The Blade of the Northern Lights. I agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn't make decisions based on whether or not they would result in people's feelings being hurt. That said, the issue of potential harm does warrant consideration, and whether Chelsea Manning would be at risk of being harmed by the titling of the article is a legitimate question. (I don't think it's quite as simple as saying it's the least of her concerns. To the extent that misgendering a transgender person is or could be harmful, "everyone [or anyone] else is doing it" would not be a good rebuttal, and I also think that Wikipedia would need to consider what we know of Manning's emotional and mental state when weighing the potential likelihood and seriousness of harm: my understanding is that she has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and has clearly said that in considering whether to announce her transition, her main motivator was horror at the idea of being publicly misgendered.)
I also think that although consideration of hurt feelings shouldn't drive Wikipedia's decision-making, it is legitimate for it to influence how we talk with each other, because we presumably all want Wikipedia to be a pleasant, friendly environment. A number of editors have expressed unhappiness about the thoughtlessness of some of the comments on transgender issues (the ones that implied transitioning is a whimsical thing, that a person's gender identity is not their own to determine, the ones that called Chelsea Manning "it," etc.), and although I think it would be a mistake to characterize that unhappiness as simple "hurt feelings," I do think it has been hurtful to some editors, particularly those who are themselves transgender. I think it's reasonable for us to be careful to not say things that are gratuitously, accidentally offensive. Sue Gardner (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Daira Hopwood[edit]

Lots of cis people here not understanding what "transphobia" even means :-(

I've written much more on this subject but I'll post it later (I'm at a conference at the moment). --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Transphobia - Intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. The problem with the words trans-phobia and homo-phobia is that they use the wording phobia in them which means "fear" The wording of phobia is used a-lot and in medical terms as well. My opinion is that I hope over time the trans-community will adopt a better word that can be better understood by people because transphobia is yes a confusing word to many. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Because of course the burden lies upon the oppressed minority to adopt terms to describe hate-speech that are more acceptable to the powerful majority among whom the practitioners of that hate-speech find sanctuary. In my opinion, the privileged can get the hell over their etymological discomfort much more easily than trans people can 'get over' being placed at a disadvantage in almost every environment through a mixture of ignorance and hate on the part of others. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think most editors understand that "transphobia" means hatred rather than fear. That is precisely the problem. It is possible to disagree with a person, even on a subject that they feel deeply about, without hating or even disliking them. I have great sympathy for the situation of trans people, and the horrible experiences that many of them have faced at the hands of people who DO hate them. And yet I have still disagreed with them in some of these connected discussions. Perhaps that is out of ignorance, but never hatred. Please make that distinction. – Smyth\talk 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A lot of burning keyboards could probably have been cooled down if a bit of distinction had been made - there were only one or two comments that made me feel as though the author was actually aggressively anti-trans*, but there were plenty of transphobic comments - and some of them were the sort of thing I myself, who identify under the trans* umbrella, would have said not too long ago. I am willing to give people a break once or twice. There's often quite a big diplomatic difference from accusing someone of being something, and telling them their actions and words had a particular effect. It really would have helped for folks to say "I'm not saying you're transphobic, but what you just said comes across as transphobic and here's why." If you can open up why, that's a win in my books, but so much of the conversation just descended into mud-slinging, and plenty of people getting so hopping mad about being called transphobic - as though that was going to go on some kind of celestial CV and ruin their reputations forever - that it prevented them from ever asking why someone called them that. Stuff like "can I just say I identify as a rubber plant and boom, I'm a rubber plant" or "HE has male plumbing; he's a guy" or "Manning is not a reliable source as regards his/her own gender" dropped me quite hard. It made me realise just how much people who don't have this "feature" in their lives do not take the time to think empathically about what it must be like. I followed the discussion and said something once or twice, and to be honest it's changed my entire opinion of Wikipedia as a source. I never noticed before how a particular demographic dominated it so clearly. – Happeningfish\talk 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. And I think it is definitely worth us distinguishing between transphobic comments and transphobic people. Probably hardly anybody would say that they are transphobic. But, lots of people say things that have transphobic assumptions underpinning them, or that would have effects that support transphobic attitudes.
I have, for sure. Before I read anything about transgenderism, I thought and said all kinds of things that were factually incorrect -- for example I assumed that the only determinant of gender was medical/physical, that gender was fixed, that gender was easily established. And I was totally unclear about the difference between gender identity, gender expression, and biological sex. That didn't change until a few different things happened -- as a journalist I met and interviewed a few transgender people such as Kate Bornstein and Jan Morris, then later I stumbled across this link, and then I eventually read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. That helped a lot -- I started being able to think, and express myself, more clearly. (Even after that though, I've definitely made mistakes: for example in an early conversation with a colleague post Chelsea Manning's transition announcement, I remember accidentally calling Manning "he.") I don't think it would be fair to say I was ever a transphobic person. But it would definitely be fair to say I have thought and said things that were transphobic -- even as recently as, like I said above, a few weeks ago.
So I don't think that labelling people as transphobic is ever helpful: it pushes them to want to defend themselves, and to justify why whatever they said was okay. I *do* think it's helpful to point out where somebody's attitudes or opinions are rooted in transphobic assumptions, because often people are just speaking out of lack of knowledge, and the only way they will get smarter is if other people help them. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

AlexTiefling[edit]

Yes, I have considered taking a WikiBreak, or even leaving for good, over this issue. I think that the way in which some editors - especially but not only Baseball Bugs - have been allowed to get away with explicitly transphobic remarks and a deeply damaging battleground attitude has permanently harmed my already low esteem for civility on the site. Bugs gets away with a hell of a lot on Reference Desks and ITNC as well; along with a few others, he seems to belong to a mysterious class of 'tolerated trolls' whom I would much rather see banished. For him to dominate the discussion of Manning's gender identity so completely with his usual jerkishness was extremely discouraging. Similarly, we have seen remarks from a wide range of users claiming special knowledge of everything from 'legal name' laws in the USA to the contents of Manning's underwear. This is simply not a responsible way for an encyclopedia to determine policy or write content. I am making a fuller statement to the ArbCom shortly on this basis; I do not yet know whether I will remain as an editor here in the longer term. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For the arbcom, you basically have until the end of today - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You call the first half of this responsible? Your venting is not helpful, all it does is contribute to the polarization. You're exactly like Bugs, just on the other side.--v/r - TP 14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Yes I do. Please retract your accusation, as the equivalence it draws is plainly unjust. Constantly picking at the choices of words made by the oppressed to describe their oppression helps to perpetuate it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a response, then I saw the word limit. I'll trim it down before the end of the day. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, David Gerard. If I say I disagree with you, will you accuse me of engaging in "hatespeak"? And, if so, do you think you should be given a pass on NPA because you are defending one side of the debate? Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A call for calm[edit]

I've been keeping an eye on this conversation for a few days now, hoping it would stop feeding off itself, but I'm going to intervene at this point and put out a call for calm. Sue asked people to share their experiences here, but users have taken that as license to attempt point-counterpoint debate instead, and each thread of that debate has ended in unkind words and accusations between the two "sides". Far from being a safe place where users can tell Sue how this experience has affected them, this page has now become yet another front in the war.

Having seen quite enough of that, I'm going to ask, possibly stepping on Sue's toes in the process, that people weighing in on this thread stick to speaking about their own experiences, rather than confronting those whose experiences or comments they find problematic. TParis and Sceptre, I'm going to ask that you folks, especially, take a step back. You've both made your points quite loudly in many places this week, and there's little except animosity to be gained by continuing to do so here, where Sue is trying to get a handle on what the experience means to people, rather than what people think about what the experience should have meant to others.

A reminder to everyone: Discretionary Sanctions are active in the topic area of transgender issues. I'm not prepared to start handing out sanctions quite yet, but everyone should be aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a cage fight, and users treating it as the latter is exactly why we have discretionary sanctions available to us. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

FN, if anyone accuses someone of engaging in hatespeak, either transphobia or heterophobia, without clear evidence, please issue the block. If you can keep the debates honest, you will help WP more than WP's administration has done so far. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
@Flutternutter, could you give a clearer idea of what conduct would warrant a sanction? To give a concrete example, no action was taken against Baseball Bugs' open and repetitive hostility, and I am interested to hear whether you have a perspective. 7daysahead (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The area of conflict with regard to recent transgender issues is extremely large and sprawling over more and more talk spaces lately, so right now, I'm focusing only on the small area of "the discussion Sue requested the community have here on her talk page", which is more handle-able by one admin. As I said above, Sue's request to hear people's experiences has turned into people fighting with each other, and I'm asking that people stop that back-and-forth debate. If users persist in arguing with each other here - whether that's calling each other names, or insisting people justify or discuss their emotions, or fighting over what "is" is - I am likely to impose what you might call a page-level topic ban by instructing those users to leave this conversation. I don't expect sanctions any more serious than that to be likely to be needed with regard to this conversation on this page, which again, is where I'm choosing to focus my energies for the moment. That doesn't mean that users aren't subject to sanctions on this topic elsewhere if they behave poorly; it just means that right now I'm trying to get this conversation under better control. To answer your question about Baseball Bugs, he doesn't appear to be participating in this particular conversation. If he did choose to participate, I would expect him to behave as well as I'm asking anyone else here to behave. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't like to reply quickly. (Hence the username "Ent").
Sue, my first thought upon seeing your question was "Push poll much"? Although I've voted for Bradley twice -- because that's what she was known as during the events which make her encyclopedic -- I don't really care that much one way or the other (as long as there's a redirect from Bradley). I'm going to pretend you asked the neutrally worded question If you have considered stopping editing, why? And the answer is, "only every time I log on, because many folks treat each other like shit around here and we have no idea what to do about it."
The Manning case does provide a good example. I find it sadly ironic that folks very concerned about how we treat a third party seem to have no hesitation ripping into their fellow editors on-wiki. The derogatory comments regards trans people are obvious but accusing folks of "transphobia" is, too: Words have both denotative and connotative meanings. Reviewing the origins in Transphobia, it is clearly not a neutral term. Regarding the similar term homophobia, the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association styleguide specifies Restrict to germane usage, such as in quotations or opinions. Use “LGBT right opponents” or a similar phrase instead of “homophobes” when describing people who disagree with LGBT rights activism. The view espoused somewhere above that because calling Chelsea a freak or something is worse than transphobic justifies transphobic -- in other words, my insult is justified because your insult is worse, has been played out over and over on Wikipedia for years. (See archives of WP:WQA if you have days to waste watching editors sling mud at each other).
The problem is, we know the problem but don't have a solution, because it's all gray and cultural (English WP spans a lot of cultures). Any attempt to define a "speech code," will have editors gaming the system, going right up to the line, baiting other editors, ratting them out. So yea, we have some significant behavior issues on Wikipedia. If I had any great idea as to how WMF could spend some of the millions to help, I would, but honestly I don't. NE Ent 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

ygm[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Sue Gardner. 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

YGM from me, too, 2x (or possibly 3x if today's e-mail sent twice...the "send" button was being buggy, sorry). -sche (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for September 19, 2013[edit]

VisualEditor has been updated twice in the last two weeks. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week.

As announced, the toolbar was redesigned to be simpler, shorter, and to have the ability to have drop-down groups with descriptions. What you see now is the initial configuration and is expected to change in response to feedback from the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. The controls to add <u> (underline), <sub> (subscript), and <sup> (superscript), <s> (strikethrough) and <code> (computer code/monospace font) annotations to text are available to all users in the drop-down menu. At the moment, all but the most basic tools have been moved into a single drop-down menu, including the tools for inserting media, references, reference lists, and templates. The current location of all of the items in the toolbar is temporary, and your opinions about the best order are needed! Please offer suggestions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Toolbar.

In an eagerly anticipated upgrade to the reference dialog, newly added references or reference groups no longer need the page to be saved before they can be re-used (bugs 51689 and 52000). The 'Use existing reference' button is now disabled on pages which don't yet have any references (bug 51848). The template parameter filter in the transclusion dialog now searches both parameter name and label (bug 51670).

In response to several requests, there are some new keyboard shortcuts. You can now set the block/paragraph formatting from the keyboard: Ctrl+0 sets a block as a regular paragraph; Ctrl+1 up to Ctrl+6 sets it as a Heading 1 ("Page title") to Heading 6 ("Sub-heading 4"); Ctrl+7 sets it as pre-formatted (bug 33512). Ctrl+2, which creates level 2 section headings, may be the most useful.

Some improvements were made to capitalization for links, so typing in "iPhone" will offer a link to "iPhone" as well as "IPhone" (bug 50452).

Copying and pasting within the same document should work better as of today's update, as should copying from VisualEditor into a third-party application (bug 53364, bug 52271, bug 52460). Work on copying and pasting between VisualEditor instances (for example, between two articles) and retaining formatting when copying from an external source into VisualEditor is progressing.

Major improvements to editing with input method editors (IMEs; mostly used for Indic and East Asian languages) are being deployed today. This is a complex change, so it may produce unexpected errors. On a related point, the names of languages listed in the "languages" (langlinks) panel in the Page settings dialog now display as RTL when appropriate (bug 53503).

Looking ahead: The help/'beta' menu will soon expose the build number next to the "Leave feedback" link, so users can give more specific reports about issues they encounter (bug 53050). This change will make it easier for developers to identify any cacheing issues, once it starts reporting the build number (currently, it says "Version false"). Also, inserting a link, reference or media file will put the cursor after the new content again (bug 53560). Next week’s update will likely improve how dropdowns and other selection menus behave when they do not fit on the screen, with things scrolling so the selected item is always in view.

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being finalized. About two dozen Wikipedias are on the list for Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only, and on Monday, September 30 for unregistered editors. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Your opinion will be appreciated[edit]

Sue, could you please comment on this blog? Thanks.50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi 50.174.76.70 -- I don't read that site. If you want to ask me something, just ask it here :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please be aware that your talk page on Meta is also being used as a blog in a cross-wiki harassment campaign against User:Demiurge1000. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The requested move of Chelsea Manning's Wikipedia article[edit]

Sue,

  1. Yesterday, I created a Requested Move, requesting that the article titled Bradley Manning be moved to Chelsea Manning, by closely following the relevant instructions on how to to so under the Requested Move procedure, which requires that a proposer endorses the proposed move, states his/her reasons for this and signs the move request. The date for this request had been agreed on by consensus for a month, and I and other editors had been involved in the preparation, collection of evidence and discussion of this for weeks.
  2. One of the editors strongly opposed to the move in the last discussion started an edit war by multiple times deleting, then altering my signed comment/proposal, which is clearly not allowed under the applicable policies and procedures related to Requested Moves.
  3. As such changes to another editor's signed comment are technically considered vandalism, a reversal is exempt from policies on edit-warring and does not constitute such.
  4. Nevertheless, an editor outrageously blocked me (as well as the other editor) for 3 hours based on an inaccurate accusation of "edit-warring", for having restored my proposed move to its original policy-compliant state (its current state)
  5. I request that the Wikimedia Foundation states unequivocally that there was no edit warring on my part and that it was completely unjustified to block an editor for having created a requested move from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning and reverted attempts to inappropriately delete it or rewrite the signed proposal that was added in accordance with the RM instructions.
  6. I have now been made aware of the fact that some editors are apparently arguing to "topic ban" me from transgender topics, in retaliation for having started a requested move from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning under Wikipedia's own procedures for requested moves, and then objected to obstructions of Wikipedia's own procedures and reinstated the request per Wikipedia policy and normal procedures when removed/inappropriately altered by one of the editors who had argued we should use "Bradley Manning" instead, citing frivolous accusations of "edit warring"—while not proposing to topic ban the user attempting to obstruct the move request from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning by deleting the proposal, inappropriately altering it and actually "edit warring." I trust that the Wikimedia Foundation as owners of this website will allow no such thing to happen.

I am bringing this up here for the benefit of external readers, especially because I have also been aggressively targeted for well over a month by editors insisting we refer to Manning using the name Bradley, for having earlier pointed out transphobic commentary in the related discussion.

I am currently writing an article on the Chelsea Manning article debacle and probably will ask for more specific comments on this case later. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Josh Gorand. I am really sorry this experience has been so awful for you -- I have thought sympathetically of you frequently over the past couple of weeks. But, there's not much (nothing, really) that I can do to help: the WMF doesn't get involved in editorial or policy discussions on Wikipedia. Every edit I've made on the Chelsea Manning controversy have been outside of work hours, and was made wearing my editor hat rather than my ED one.
If you point me towards the conversation where your topic banning is being discussed I'd be happy to contribute there (again, as an editor). And when you write your article you can of course feel free to ask me for comment, which I will happily provide. But there's not much else I can, or appropriately would, do to intervene in the normal workings of the encyclopedia. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It was on the ongoing arbitration case pages related to Chelsea Manning, on the various pages there, where I was disproportionately singled out in the initial request, initially over me having made a number of comments objecting to the stream of comments comparing transgendered people to dogs and explaining the concept of transphobia, and now even using the edits/efforts to post a move request to Chelsea as an argument(!) to topic ban me from transgender topics (I've never even edited transgender topics, except the Manning discussion, and don't actually intend to edit this project at all when this case is finished). I didn't anticipate it would be a problem to post a move request at all or that my comment would be removed and redacted repeatedly by one editor against procedure. Josh Gorand (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To say that your proposed topic ban is because you started the RM is the height of intellectual dishonesty. The RM you started (in bad form due to the likely fact that you were aware a draft created by others was already in place) post dated the discussion to topic ban you, as you almost are certainly aware of because you are a party to the Arbcom case where this proposal was made. AFAIK the arbitrators made that proposal, not "Bradley" supporters.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - a completely false account of events. The topic ban proposal was already well underway, with 3 or 4 votes in favor, before Josh was blocked for edit warring. The finding in question (from arbcom case):
josh, I don't know your personal connection to this particular case, but it seems you are operating in a vacuum. I don't know if I have learned the most or just learned a lot, but suffice to say it has exposed me to many different viewpoints. Some are very open, subject to policy, some are very closed due to personal belief. I hope you can objectively step back and see where you stand and whether you are overwhelmed by the topic. Obi Wan Kenobi has had no problem in reverting edits that were unhelpful to policy and the project. I know first hand. I hope you realize the effort he has put in since the original decision. He created a place and a starting point for RM without prejudging the output and moderated a place to provide evidence. This was much more useful than just a free for all atmosphere. I added material, asked questions, made proposals, etc. I neither "won" nor "lost" but the feedback created understanding. I wished it had been extended as there was another dimension I wished to explore but OWK didn't deviate from the principle. Wikipedia is not advocacy space though many editors are advocates. --DHeyward (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
"I request that the Wikimedia Foundation states unequivocally that there was no edit warring on my part"
Instant Classic ;) Iselilja (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A collection of evidence in preparation for a Requested Move (RM) that I was a major contributor to from the start had been prepared for a month and 30 September was the date agreed on by unanimous consensus, known to everyone. I started the RM late in the day on the agreed date per the RM instructions, so nothing wrong about that at all, this is how RMs work here. I'm not aware of any other RM proposal, i waited to see if anyone would file it on the agreed date but it didn't seem anyone had prepared anything or wanted to do so.

Yes, it's absolutely clear that I'm now being additionally targeted for having started the RM. The same small group of editors who were opposed to the move to Chelsea the last time have aggressively targeted me in countless venues based initially on my objections to transphobic commentary a month ago. Then one of them proceeded to delete and inappropriately reword a legitimately filed RM several times, completely against procedure. Reinstating a legitimately filed RM is perfectly legitimate. It is clear that I'm now being additionally targeted for having filed a move request to move the article "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning" and having, in accordance with policy, reinstated that request (subsequently, various administrators also reinstated the request in its original state per the RM procedure). Josh Gorand (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors have already been drafting a Move discussion over the last several weeks, and they were a bit miffed when you, to be blunt, bullied your way to the top and tried to override what they'd been preparing. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, I was one of the main "editors [who] have already been drafting a Move discussion over the last several weeks", in fact I contributed most of the non-news sources and organized the collection of evidence in its current structure (mostly). I find it somewhat odd that editors who opposed the move to Chelsea with the rationale "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know" are now complaining that one of the editors favouring the move from the start has now started a requested move, late in the day on the date agreed on for a month, as entitled to under the RM procedure and following the related instructions. This appears to be a form of bullying of the editor starting the requested move, for the latter reason, and a complete disregard for due process. Thank you for illustrating my point regarding the fact that editors (including myself but also others) who have been arguing in favour of common human decency regarding transgender people have been aggressively bullied for over a month by editors who for example compare transgendered people to pigs. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Josh - your dishonesty is catching up with your quickly and this failed attempt to appeal to an authority to save you is pathetic. You knew that the RM was in development, you knew that Obi Wan was developing the draft, you hijacked it to get an upper hand. But all of that is beside the point. You didn't just "point[ing] out transphobic commentary," you accused every supporter of Bradley of being personally transphobic. You cannot count yourself among the numbers of users who reasonable and accurately pointed out hateful language. You arn't one of them. You didn't put any thought toward your words, you just threw accusations. It's sad that Sue hasn't been able to distinguish between that. It's sad that she's been sympathetic to you. But she at least knows, whether because of legal or her own conscience, that if she were to get involve it would remove Wikimedia's 'content host' legal protections and make them a content provider. She can't do that. You're out of luck. The best thing you can do right now, for yourself, is go back and read what you actually said instead of what you think you said. Then you can wrap your head around the difference between commenting on the comments and commenting on the editors. After that, you can plead to Arbcom that you'll do better next time. Other than that, your fate is sealed. I look forward to your article, I also urge you to pay closer adherence to the facts; you wouldn't want to defame anyone.--v/r - TP 13:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Er, I didn't hijack anything. I have been arguing in favour of moving the article to Chelsea from day 1 and contributing to the development (and organization) of the second RM from the start, including some of its core sources, so your personal attacks and dishonest comments don't really impress me. If anyone wanted to hijack it, it were editors opposed to the move initially who seemed to want "oppose" arguments in the request to move it to Chelsea (completely contrary to how RMs work and the RM instructions). Also, if anyone else had wanted to start an RM, they could have done it earlier on the day, because everyone knew it was going to start on this specific date. I don't need "saving" at all; I'm stating the facts here to have them here on the record when I write about all this later (if I get "topic banned" from transgender topics (which I don't even routinely edit) for having 1) objected to obvious hate speech against a transgendered person a month ago and 2) proposed that "Bradley Manning" be renamed "Chelsea Manning", it's not me at all that it will reflect badly on). The fact is that you are one of the main culprits in aggressively targeting editors who called out transphobic commentary, and that such behaviour by a small number of editors continued for over a month targeting editors arguing in favour of decency and Wikipedia policy, and that even starting an RM completely in accordance with procedure led to such targeting of editors. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
So write your article, then. The facts are clear as day on Wikipedia. As I said though, you better be careful that your aggressiveness and extremism don't put you in jeopardy of defaming anyone in your little article.--v/r - TP 15:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Since your a rules guy, WP:TPG says not to edit your comments after they've been replied to. Don't get hung up on the "a month ago" thing, Arbcom cases generally take a month or more. That's how they operate to give plenty of time for all of the evidence to be weighed and considered.--v/r - TP 15:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not referring exclusively to that case, that's only a small part of what has been going on here. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Your input into the discussion there for the last 2 weeks can charitably be described as "negligible". You came in and edit-warred one some preferred language at the 11th hour, and were rightly blocked for begin disruptive. You aren't being targeted for your beliefs in this matter, only your sub-optimal behavior. By the way, you did note the part of the Arb decision where the "pig meme" was rebutted, right? Tarc (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Josh did contribute a lot to the move request; what I felt was unfair was that he presumed to be the only one who could write the move request header, which was bizarre given the whole request had been built by consensus over a month, so this last minute grab of putting his, and only his, name at the top was rather rude, and rather than discuss calmly the location of the move, he stormed around copy/pasting the move into two different (and non-optimal) places ,against previous consensus which had been to keep the move at the original sub-page. In any case, the arbcom has little to do with that, and everything to do with his behavior during the last discussion, for which diffs have been provided and everyone can judge for themselves.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You proposed that we postponed the RM until October and no one seemed to have prepared an RM proposal or to post it on the agreed date (30 Sep). Late in the day, I posted an RM according to the RM instructions, on the agreed date everyone was aware it would be posted (by someone). The RM instructions specifically state that a specific proposer has to make (or "endorse") the proposal, cite a rationale in favour of the proposed move and sign that proposal (i.e. an RM proposal is required to be a signed comment by a specific editor advocating a change). It's not supposed to be "neutral" or co-written by opponents of the proposal. If you or anyone else had wanted to start it, there was ample time and possibility for that until I did it in the afternoon on the agreed date seeing noone else being inclined to do so on the agreed date. All contributors to the draft page were credited for their work collecting evidence in the proposal. Although collaboration on evidence collection progressed mostly peacefully, you had on occasions been exhibiting a problematic ownership behaviour previously, once telling me I couldn't comment(!) on a proposal by yourself, and quite frankly, I find it odd that an editor so strongly opposed the last time should have been the proposer of this second RM. Nevertheless, had you suggested your changes to the rationale in a civil way and/or wanted to co-sign it, that would have been perfectly ok (I suppose it would also have been ok if you had wanted to add your own rationale in addition to the initial one). Instead you repeatedly deleted it and changed it without permission, completely contrary to the RM procedure as outlined in the related instructions. That was not acceptable at all. We had discussed very thoroughly in advance that we would start on 30 Sep without further delays, and there was ample time to make proposals regarding the procedure .Josh Gorand (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The source collection in preparation of the RM cited in the proposal was largely finished 2 weeks ago with no big developments lately. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Legobot (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

I mentioned your name[edit]

I mentioned you at the WP:Education noticeboard about the terms of a grant. It is under the "Wiki Education Foundation update September update" sub-section. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite an interesting conversation, and I hope you're watching. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
But perhaps it's more "important" for you to comment at m:Talk:Executive Director Transition Team? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You might also see m:Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_2014, as no one seems to have taken a lead over there. Anyhow. Thanks for the stuff you said that got coverage in the Signpost. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Country-of-origin effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Products (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable VisualEditor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013[edit]

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable VisualEditor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the October blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

[edit]

Hi Sue. Since you issued a statement about paid editing, would you please look at Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal and tell me what you think of it? The issue of paid editing has a lot of wrinkles that need to be considered. I am concerned that your statement is being misused to undermine the principle that "Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that Anybody Can Edit." I for one am frequently confronted with assumptions of bad faith because of my profession, even though I don't engage in paid editing. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. Yeah, I'm familiar with that proposal, but I've never commented on it. I'll take a look this weekend. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Partial sentence that was left over from your edit, article Transphobia[edit]

Hi. It seems that one of your edits to the article Transphobia, specifically revision 573859640 on at 2013-09-21T02:23Z, left a partial sentence in the article at the end of the section Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion. Yours truly removed that partial sentence for now in revision 578778543 on at 2013‎-10-26T03:29Z but here is this report in case you want to re-visit this, for instance if you have something left that you meant to put there. --89.204.135.121 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC) (2013-10-26T05:38+02:00)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Question at Wikipediocracy[edit]

Hi Sue. I just opened a thread with a question to you at Wikipediocracy. [9] Above you said you don't read the site, but I'm extending an invitation, anyway. You are genuinely welcome there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Don't touch them with a barge pole. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to Sue, and probably to some of the rest of us, if the question to which you are trying to point her, actually made some sort of sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It relates to the above thread, #The dignity of a BLP subject. I was assuming Sue would recall it but you're right, I should have made the link explicit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If enwiki's elected representatives (arbcom) don't share Sue's views on "basic human dignity", isn't there a bit of a problem with your proposal right from the start? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't they? Have they changed their position since the Badlydrawnjeff case? Regardless, the WMF board BLP resolution says we should take basic human dignity into account, and we expressly don't. A trivial style guideline trumps human dignity. "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects" was removed from policy. I'm trying to understand the ED's decision not to impose this important element of the WMF's resolution on en.Wikipedia, when the project failed to adopt it as policy.
The sex, age and psychiatric disability of most of the remaining "active" editors here means we will never be safe for editors or subjects who are women, children or people of any kind of difference - until the WMF imposes basic civilised norms. I'd like to know why the Foundation on the one hand resolves that we should respect the dignity of our subjects but then acts as if it can't enforce the resolution.
We know it can: It ultimately controls who can do what here. The only reason I've heard so far (from other editors not the WMF) for the WMF not imposing editorial policy is to protect itself from liability for any harm done by the encyclopedia (defamation, copyright, etc.). The line seems to be, "Oh, we never control content, so we're not responsible for content." It seems to me the WMF is responsible for any harm we do that could have been readily predicted and that could have been prevented without unduly diminishing the encyclopedia, regardless of whether it chooses to behave responsibly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hear hear. Cla68 (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have a problem retaining female editors?[edit]

I think this is the answer in a nutshell. -- 101.119.14.145 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric is responsible for a lot of things, but it is not his fault that the ratio of female editors is only a few hundred per cent better than the ratio of female CEOs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The aggressive and hostile Wikipedia culture in which "f**k off" seems to be accepted wording is a primary reason that women drop out. Susan Herring ("Gender and Power in Online Communication," 2003) found that "women were more likely than men to react aversively to aggression in online interaction, including falling silent and dropping out." Ex-Wikipedia editors (not just women) have reported similar things. Eric is one of the worst examples of this toxic side of Wikipedia culture, and this toxic side exists because many admins seem to find language like "f**k off" completely acceptable. If this problem doesn't get solved, editorship will drop until there are only a few dozen Wikipedians left. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
One possibility for the WMF to consider is gender quotas for the adminship. -- 101.119.15.185 (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And cratship and stewardship? Perhaps all-female shortlists for us to choose candidates from? Certainly an interesting idea. Almost as interesting as rationing the number of swear-words people are allowed to use. Let's see how popular that one is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Dealing with the aggressive and hostile Wikipedia culture will certainly require ignoring "popularity" and implementing some top-down policies that actually change things. -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
101 said, "The aggressive and hostile Wikipedia culture in which "f**k off" seems to be accepted wording is a primary reason that women drop out." I really have become quite weary of this sort of sexist theory coming up again and again. Women are not lovely flowers that wilt and die when they are exposed to men saying fuck. On the other hand, women are more likely to attempt to negotiate rather than become aggressive and bully their way into getting the upper hand in disagreements. That is the real problem here, not that a few editors say fuck from time to time. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And you don't think that perhaps words like f**k and c**t are being used as a deliberate bullying tactic? -- 101.119.14.101 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
funk & cant?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@ 101: No. Gandydancer (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Offensive language, particularly offensive language which denigrates women, is being used on Wikipedia as a deliberate bullying tactic in order to "win" points by driving away other editors, particularly editors outside the US-male-student demographic. -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's also a breach of the WMF NDP. We're talking about behaviour which, in a physical workplace, would be found discriminatory by the courts. -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Quotas for women at RfA? Isn't RfA dead enough already? Also, the primary reason that improving the gender disparity is an issue is to resolve systemic bias in the encyclopedia. The gender of admins seems rather tangential to the systemic bias issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is certainly broken. There were 51,260 active editors in 2007; there were 28,720 on last count. Behind those numbers lies a retention problem, and that retention problem is most severe outside the US-male-student demographic. If we need more data on why people leave, one solution is to set up an online survey, and a bot which emails people the link to it or month or two after their last edit. But clearly the governance of Wikipedia is a big part of the problem, with many admins being openly supportive of bad behaviour. Possibly we need to abolish the concept of "admins" completely, and invent a new governance framework, where admin-like functions are more distributed across the editorship. But something needs to be done, or the editorship will gradually shrink to zero. -- 101.119.14.202 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"[edit]

While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!"JKadavoor Jee 06:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

Possible roundabout way of getting more female and non-WASP male editors[edit]

Maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe one option might be to try to encourage development of some of the other WF entities, and, maybe, now with the move to SF, maybe working a bit more closely with some of the entertainment media based in California and Hollywood. The entities which strike me as being, maybe, the easiest for new editors who may not be particular specialists in any way might be commons and WikiSource. So, maybe, although it is probably too late for this particular example, maybe trying to get a collaboration on wikisource to get Twelve Years a Slave complete there, at around the time of the DVD release. Any other major theatrical and or television releases which have clearly related PD texts might also potentially have some interest in such, although it might also cut down on their profits from reprinting the books themselves, which might make such corporations less likely to do so. Maybe. I also think, again, maybe, that women might be more interested in developing content related to child-rearing than men, among other things, and maybe, somehow, trying to promote wikisource or wikiversity for development of material might encourage some input from them. Also, obviously, if any city is doing some sort of "Big Read"-type event, maybe trying to get the city involved to do some collaboration on developing such material on wikisource or wikiversity might be beneficial, although I don't know how often such "Big Reads" take place. Just a few ideas, anyway. And I apologize for the abuse of the word "maybe" 13 times now in this comment. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

Donation pledges during GA backlog drive[edit]

Hello Sue. The reviewers at WP:GAN are planning a backlog elimination drive in December. I'm excited to tell you that for the first time, this effort will include a pledge drive, in which users pledge a donation to the WMF for each GA review that is completed. I think this will be a great way to encourage editors to simultaneously clear the backlog and support the organization that keeps Wikipedia running!

I hope to solicit more pledges over the next few weeks, but I just wanted to inform you and your fundraising team. Please feel free to contact me or the GA Project with any comments. Edge3 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pyoderma gangrenosum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vegetative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for November 2013[edit]

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some feature changes, major infrastructure improvements to make the system more stable, dependable and extensible, some minor toolbar improvements, and fixing bugs.

A new form parsing library for language characters in Parsoid caused the corruption of pages containing diacritics for about an hour two weeks ago. Relatively few pages at the English Wikipedia were affected, but this created immediate problems at some other Wikipedias, sometimes affecting several dozen pages. The development teams for Parsoid and VisualEditor apologize for the serious disruption and thank the people who reported this emergency at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and on the public IRC channel, #mediawiki-visualeditor.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

  • Accidental deletion of infoboxes and other items: You now need to press the Delete or ← Backspace key twice to delete a template, reference or image. The first time, the item becomes selected, and the second time, it is removed. The need to press the delete key twice should make it more obvious what you are doing and help avoid accidental removals of infoboxes and similar (bug 55336).
  • Switch from VisualEditor to the wikitext editor: A new feature lets you make a direct, one-way editing interface change, which will preserve your changes without needing to save the page and re-open it in the wikitext editor (bug 50687). It is available in a new menu in the action buttons by the Cancel button (where the "Page Settings" button used to be). Note that this new feature is not currently working in Firefox.
  • Categories and Languages are also now directly available in that menu. The category suggestions drop-down was appearing in the wrong place rather than below its input box, which is now fixed. An incompatibility between VisualEditor and the deployed Parsoid service that prevented editing categories and language links was fixed.
  • File:, Help: and Category: namespaces: VisualEditor was enabled for these namespaces the on all wikis (bug 55968), the Portal: and Viquiprojecte: namespaces on the Catalan Wikipedia (bug 56000), and the Portal: and Book: namespaces on the English Wikipedia (bug 56001).
  • Media item resizing: We improved how files are viewed in a few ways. First, inline media items can now be resized in the same way that has been possible with block ones (like thumbnails) before. When resizing a media item, you can see a live preview of how it will look as you drag it (bug 54298). While you are dragging an image to resize it, we now show a label with the current dimensions (bug 54297). Once you have resized it, we fetch a new, higher resolution image for the media item if necessary (bug 55697). Manual setting of media item sizes in their dialog is nearly complete and should be available next week. If you hold down the Shift key whilst resizing an image, it will now snap to a 10 pixel grid instead of the normal free-hand sizing. The media item resize label now is centered while resizing regardless of which tool you use to resize it.
  • Undo and redo: A number of improvements were made to the transactions system which make undoing and redoing more reliable during real-time collaboration (bug 53224).
  • Save dialogue: The save page was re-written to use the same code as all other dialogs (bug 48566), and in the process fixed a number of issues. The save dialog is re-accessible if it loses focus (bug 50722), or if you review a null edit (bug 53313); its checkboxes for minor edit, watch the page, and flagged revisions options now layout much more cleanly (bug 52175), and the tab order of the buttons is now closer to what users will expect (bug 51918). There was a bug in the save dialog that caused it to crash if there was an error in loading the page from Parsoid, which is now fixed.
  • Links to other articles or pages sometimes sent people to invalid pages. VisualEditor now keeps track of the context in which you loaded the page, which lets us fix up links in document to point to the correct place regardless of what entry point you launched the editor from—so the content of pages loaded through /wiki/Foobar?veaction=edit and /w/index.php?title=Foobar&veaction=edit both now have text links that work if triggered (bug 48915).
  • Toolbar links: A bug that caused the toolbar's menus to get shorter or even blank when scrolled down the page in Firefox is now fixed (bug 55343).
  • Numbered external links: VisualEditor now supports Parsoid's changed representation of numbered external links (bug 53505).
  • Removed empty templates: We also fixed an issue that meant that completely empty templates became impossible to interact with inside VisualEditor, as they didn't show up (bug 55810).
  • Mathematics formulae: If you would like to try the experimental LaTeX mathematics tool in VisualEditor, you will need to opt-in to Beta Features. This is currently available on Meta-wiki, Wikimedia Commons, and Mediawiki.org. It will be available on all other Wikimedia sites on 21 November.
  • Browser testing support: If you are interested in technical details, the browser tests were expanded to cover some basic cursor operations, which uncovered an issue in our testing framework that doesn't work with cursoring in Firefox; the Chrome tests continue to fail due to a bug with the welcome message for that part of the testing framework.
  • Load time: VisualEditor now uses content language when fetching Wikipedia:TemplateData information, so reducing bandwidth use, and users on multi-language or multi-script wikis now get TemplateData hinting for templates as they would expect (bug 50888).
  • Reuse of VisualEditor: Work on spinning out the user experience (UX) framework from VisualEditor into oojs-ui, which lets other teams at Wikimedia (like Flow) and gadget authors re-use VisualEditor UX components, is now complete and is being moved to a shared code repository.
  • Support for private wikis: If you maintain a private wiki at home or at work, VisualEditor now supports editing of private wikis, by forwarding the Cookie: HTTP header to Parsoid ($wgVisualEditorParsoidForwardCookies set to true) (bug 44483). (Most private wikis will also need to install Parsoid and node.js, as VisualEditor requires them.)

Looking ahead:

  • VisualEditor will be released to some of the smaller Wikipedias on 02 December 2013. If you are active at one or more smaller Wikipedias where VisualEditor is not yet generally available, please see the list at VisualEditor/Rollouts.
  • Public office hours on IRC to discuss VisualEditor with Product Manager James Forrester will be held on Monday, 2 December, at 1900 UTC and on Tuesday, 3 December, at 0100 UTC. Bring your questions. Logs will be posted on Meta after each office hour completes.
  • In terms of feature improvements, one of the major infrastructure projects affects how inserting characters works, both using your computer's built-in Unicode input systems and through a planned character inserter tool for VisualEditor. The forthcoming rich copying and pasting feature was extended and greater testing is currently being done. Work continues to support the improved reference dialog to quickly add citations based on local templates.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The reliability of Wikipedia's medical content[edit]

Hi. This might interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussions on conflict of interest policy[edit]

As I've already said this on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit, in order not to be overly repetitive there, I thought I would pass along a few thoughts on your talk page. Although I may be in the minority, I think it is possible to find some common ground on forming a conflict of interest policy. There is fairly good support for the current conflict of interest guideline, which I think should be used as a start for forming a policy. The problems with having a large group discussion, and the eagerness of various editors in creating six different proposals has caused the discussion to fragment, rather than converge towards a consensus view. I am hopeful that someone like Dank can help structure the discussion towards a conclusion, but it will require patience from all involved, which seems more and more to be in short supply, and a willingness to accommodate the views of others, even if it means taking an incremental approach to developing a policy—perhaps some parts for which there is common agreement can be codified now, with a plan to look for more agreement on other parts later. isaacl (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks isaacl; this is helpful. I agree with you that the discussions seem to have diverged rather than converging, which isn't helping to reach a conclusion. I think it'd be great if Dank, or someone like Dank, could take on the task of actively facilitating towards consensus. Besides Dank, are there other editors in those discussions who seem particularly trusted and skilled at facilitation? Sue Gardner (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I contribute about 50/50 volunteer and COI and do comment on the COI discussions now and then, with some caution and disclosure. You mentioned knowing folks that need short, clear and straightforward advice. I'm somewhat skeptical of the masses reaching consensus, so a while back I created my own little alternative guide mostly for personal use, but I'm told some editors at the Help Desk use it as well. The Marketing and Bright Line section is just 700 words long. Though it could probably use more "Click here" and "type this" type advice, it may be helpful for your friends that need straightforward instructions. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Conflict-of-interest policies are difficult area for reputable publishers. I don't think we can realistically expect to crowdsource a functional, coherent COI policy. It needs to be imposed by the Foundation, according to how seriously the issue is taken. Right now, we produce highly-viewed and (inexplicably) trusted medical content with no COI policy, which is a recipe for disaster. It's going to blow up on us - whether it's people from drug companies editing to promote their products, or editors associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement hyping the purported health benefits of their product... this is a huge credibility hit waiting to happen. MastCell Talk 21:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Sue, let me put it this way: it comes down to a fundamentally different way of viewing Wikipedia. Some editors view possible COI policy through the lens of "how will it impact Wikipedia editors." Implicitly, perhaps unconsciously, they view the first responsibility of Wikipedia as to provide a pleasant editing environment for their fellow editors, and secondarily to be fair to subjects, to cooperate with subjects of articles as much as possible. They worry that COI rules will increase the amount of conflict and tension. Whereas the position that I take, and which I think is reflected in the opinions of the minority of editors who favor a COI policy, is that Wikipedia's first responsibility is to the reader. Readers come to Wikipedia with an expectation that it will be reasonably free of influence from the subject of the article. I'm sure that one can find a middle ground between these two positions after much discussion consuming many more thousands of person-hours, but I suggest that it will be so weak and so equivocal that it will make Wikipedia into a laughingstock. I agree with MastCell that, if the Foundation is interested in a meaningful conflict of interest policy, it cannot be generated by teasing one out of Wikipedia processes. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well... editors do have to be willing to compromise, because consensus rarely occurs. The problem with RfCs like that is the lack of consensus will always result in supporting the status quo. Now, if I was not a COI contributor myself, I would start a policy around marketing participation boldly, then wait for the inevitable deletion discussion. I would consider such bold editing to be the proper Wikipedia way.
Since the block of Wiki-Experts for non-disclosure without actually seeing any of their edits proves that disclosure is policy, the best way to start such a policy would be with a single sentence saying direct financial connections should be disclosed. CorporateM (Talk) 02:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to make a comment. Above, it is said, "Readers come to Wikipedia with an expectation that it will be reasonably free of influence from the subject of the article." Actually, I believe that's about the third or fourth priority of readers. The first priority is that they come to Wikipedia with an expectation that there will exist an article about the subject they're looking for. The second priority is that the information in the article will be factual, regardless of who wrote it. Third, they are probably expecting that there will be reliable sources at the bottom of the article, to facilitate further research that they may wish to undertake. And then, probably in fourth place, readers come to Wikipedia with an expectation that it will be reasonably free of influence from the subject of the article. Take, for instance, the article about J.D. Gordon Creative Labs. You know, I know, and everyone commenting on this Talk page knows -- that article was written either by a paid editor or an employee at J.D. Gordon Creative Labs, also known as User:Welltextured. We could wring our hands, say that this is wrong and bad for Wikipedia, and maybe even delete the article. However, from the time that article was created in April 2013, it's been looked at by about 8 or 9 readers per week, and none of them have made any complaint on the Talk page of the article. The content appears to be factual, if self-serving. There are numerous references sourced, pathetic as they may be, but at least they verify that this company exists and does produce award-winning output. So, really only the fourth priority is unserved. The reader is decidedly not getting content that is reasonably free of influence from the subject of the article. But, who cares? Apparently 40 or 45 people per month were seeking information about this company, and were it not for the company being proactive and creating an article, those 40 or 45 monthly visitors would have had to go somewhere other than the world's largest encyclopedia to find a background summary of J.D. Gordon Creative Labs. I think it's time we just say that paid encyclopedists who abide by WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOTE are welcome to write encyclopedia articles that don't "promote" their subject. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I had to check to make sure this wasn't an attempt at black humor. You couldn't have picked a worse example to show that ad companies add something to Wikipedia. It's obvious that the ad company wrote an article about themselves. It gives no real information about the company, other than that it is open for business. There are no other sources about the company (at least none listed on Google) It attracts about 1 reader every day (that might just be them checking on their article). We'd likely never know if it goes out of business. What does this add to the encyclopedia? If we were a business directory, it might add a small bit, but we couldn't keep it up to date. It takes up editor time. It makes us look like we can be bought. It decreases our reputation for reliability. In short it is a major problem. And INTC is using this to argue that all ads like this should be allowed, because nobody has complained yet. As soon as anybody noticed it, it was listed for deletion.
But actually it is not the worst example of a non-entity advertising on Wikipedia. A single store coffee shop Zona Rosa Caffe in Pasadena, has no references, nothing that looks like an RS on Google, no in-coming links, 2 tables in front (check out Google Streetview 34°08′44″N 118°08′13″W / 34.145537°N 118.136977°W / 34.145537; -118.136977), I'll guess it has seating for 35 inside, it's had an article since 2007, and maybe a dozen edits. It's been tagged as an orphan and as an ad since 2008. But it does get 2 page views per day (they must have wifi). We clearly don't have the time or manpower to weed this stuff out or (even if possible) make a quality article out of it. So why do we want ads like this here? What does it add to the encyclopedia? Keeping garbage like this, or inviting it in as you seem to want would just unload all sorts of garbage here. Rather we need a rule that can keep it out from the beginning. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
How do you feel about that, Sue? And if you disagree, if the Foundation disagrees, what are you going to do about it? The above point of view is the dominant one on this issue. Remember, and it can't be repeated too often, this is your problem. Coretheapple (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't think for a moment that INTC represents a majority of editors here. He might represent the majority of editors who have a vested interest in paid editing, but we might never know. One way around that is simply to take a random survey of editors and readers. I'd guess that at least 80% of editors and at least 90% of readers would be in favor of limiting paid editing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────While some are getting their panties in a major twist over Wikipedia including some articles about small businesses that don't hurt anyone by their presence here, I wonder if they'd be brave enough to explain why when an ad company is "caught" creating their own Wikipedia article, the article must be deleted, and the editor chastised, and anyone found to have liked the article be accused of "black humor"; but when a vice-chairman of Wikimedia Norway is "caught" adding public relations content to the article about his daytime employer, the response barely rises to the level of a slap on the wrist, the article stays, and the editor is encouraged to continue doing his good work for the Wikimedia movement? Once you guys sort out your own hypocrisy, then maybe we can address an objective and even-handed way of dealing with content that has a COI background. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In the short time I've been following this issue, I notice that every time paid editing is raised, somebody pushing the paid-editing cause comes by to try to embarrass the Foundation or Wales in some manner. It's getting old. Hypocrisy indeed.
Smallbones I wish that you were right, but unfortunately the overwhelming !votes in the policy proposal RfCs (and other discussions such as this one)tell a different story. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't seen....[edit]

Like the Core Contest, I got another microgrant for this, the Stub Contest...be interesting to see if it makes an appreciable dent in the numbers of stubs and increases average page size....(i.e. how many entries will this page have, given it is only the first day of it now......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

  • Featured content: F*&!

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

A way to save some money?[edit]

Hi Sue,

I've just happened to look at this project that was funded by the WMF. Could you please explain to me why Wikimedia commons is not using hundreds if not thousands of free images uploaded to Flickr instead of paying somebody? Thanks.69.181.40.174 (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You're willing to volunteer to comb through those pictures and copy a wide assortment of monument photos to Commons and label them appropriately? Great! --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

Please see the DR at Commons [10] and in particular my comments at [11] Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats![edit]

On the 2 Knight Foundation awards! If you need any help in deciding how to spend the second part, just let me know :-) though I'm sure you can do a better job than anybody on this part (that's why they gave it to you).

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

VisualEditor newsletter • 19 December 2013[edit]

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some toolbar improvements, fixing bugs, and improving support for Indic languages as well as other languages with complex characters. The current focus is on improving the reference dialog and expanding the new character inserter tool.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

  • Rich copying and pasting is now available. If you copy text from another website, then character formatting and some other HTML attributes are preserved. This means, for example, that if you copy a pre-formatted suggested citation from a source like this, then VisualEditor will preserve the formatting of the title in the citation. Keep in mind that copying the formatting may include formatting that you don't want (like section headings). If you want to paste plain, unformatted text onto a page, then use Control+ Shift+V or Command+ Shift+V (Mac).
  • Auto-numbered external links like [12] can now be edited just like any other link. However, they cannot be created in VisualEditor easily.
  • Several changes to the toolbar and dialogs have been made, and more are on the way. The toolbar has been simplified with a new drop-down text styles menu and an "insert" menu. Your feedback on the toolbar is wanted here. The transclusion/template dialog has been simplified. If you have enabled mathematical formula editing, then the menu item is now called the formula editor instead of LaTeX.
  • There is a new character inserter, which you can find in the new "insert" menu, with a capital Omega ("Ω"). It's a very basic set of characters. Your feedback on the character inserter is wanted here.
  • Saving the page should seem faster by several seconds now.
  • It is now possible to access VisualEditor by manually editing the URL, even if you are not logged in or have not opted in to VisualEditor normally.  To do so, append ?veaction=edit to the end of the page name.  For example, change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random?veaction=edit to open a random page in VisualEditor.  This is intended to support bug testing across multiple browsers, without requiring editors to login repeatedly.

Looking ahead: The transclusion dialog will see further changes in the coming weeks, with a simple mode for single templates and an advanced mode for more complex transclusions. The new character formatting menu on the toolbar will get an arrow to show that it is a drop-down menu. The reference dialog will be improved, and the Reference item will become a button in the main toolbar, rather than an item in the Insert menu.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon[edit]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!
Csaky madonna.jpg
Hi Sue Gardner! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

SarahStierch (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation[edit]

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A belated Merry Christmas[edit]

Adoration of the Magi Tapestry.png

or looking on the bright side, an early Happy New Years!

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

GOCE 2013 Annual Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

VisualEditor newsletter for Janaury 2014[edit]

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked mostly minor features and fixing bugs. A few significant bugs include working around a bug in CSSJanus that was wrongly flipping images used in some templates in right-to-left (RTL) environments (bug 50910) a major bug that meant inserting any template or other transclusion failed (bug 59002), a major but quickly resolved problem due to an unannounced change in MediaWiki core, which caused VisualEditor to crash on trying to save (bug 59867). This last bugs did not appear on any Wikipedia. Additionally, significant work has been done in the background to make VisualEditor work as an independent editing system.

As of today, VisualEditor is now available as an opt-out feature to all users at 149 active Wikipedias.

  • The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu has a very basic set of characters. The character inserter is especially important for languages that use Latin and Cyrillic alphabets with unusual characters or frequent diacritics. Your feedback on the character inserter is requested. In addition to feedback from any interested editor, the developers would particularly like to hear from anyone who speaks any of the 50+ languages listed under Phase 5 at mw:VisualEditor/Rollouts, including Breton, Mongolian, Icelandic, Welsh, Afrikaans, Macedonian, and Azerbaijani.
  • meta:Office hours on IRC have been heavily attended recently. The next one will be held this coming Wednesday, 22 January at 23:00 UTC.
  • You can now edit some of the page settings in the "options" dialog – __NOTOC__ and __FORCETOC__ as selection (forced on, forced off, or default setting; bugs 56866 and 56867) and __NOEDITSECTION__ as a checkbox (bug 57166).
  • The automated browser tests were adjusted to speed them up and bind more correctly to list items in lists, and updated to a newer version of their ruby dependencies. You can monitor the automated browser tests' results (triggered every twelve hours) live on the server.
  • Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide was updated recently to show some new and upcoming features.

Looking ahead: The character formatting menu on the toolbar will get a drop-down indicator next Thursday. The reference and media items will be the first two listed in the Insert menu. The help menu will get a page listing the keyboard shortcuts. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including support for alignment (left, right, and center) and better control over image size (including default and upright sizes). The developers are also working on support for editing redirects and image galleries.

Subscriptions to this newsletter are managed at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Please add or remove your name to change your subscription settings. If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor Newsletter—February 2014[edit]

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some small changes to the user interface, such as moving the reference item to the top of the Insert menu, as well as some minor features and fixing bugs, especially for rich copying and pasting of references.

The biggest change was the addition of more features to the image dialog, including the ability to set alignment (left, right, center), framing options (thumbnail, frame, frameless, and none), adding alt text, and defining the size manually. There is still some work to be done here, including a quick way to set the default size.

Looking ahead: The link tool will tell you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. The warning about wikitext will hide itself after you remove the wikitext markup in that paragraph. Support for creating and editing redirects is in the pipeline. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including default and upright sizes. The developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments, some behavioral magic words like DISPLAYTITLE, and in-line language setting (dir="rtl").

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive[edit]

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Definition of 'paid advocacy editing'[edit]

I just wanted to draw your attention to a discussion of paid advocacy editing on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Your press release on the subject was brought up (by me, actually) and there's some confusion concerning the term "paid advocacy editing" and whether overt "advocacy" is an essential part of the equation (as opposed to it being sufficient that a person be paid to create and expand articles for a client). See, as I pointed out in the discussion, the most effective paid editors of the Wiki-PR variety do not overtly "advocate" but adhere, superficially at least, to NPOV. Indeed, the paid editing community sometimes refer to themselves as "paid encyclopedic editors." Can you help us out by sharing your view of the subject, by explaining your conception of the paid advocacy editor? The discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Who_owns_the_Wikimedia_Foundation.3F Thanks very much. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

Please comment on User talk:Bgwhite[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bgwhite. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

VisualEditor newsletter—March 2014[edit]

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on changes to the template and image dialogs.

The biggest change in the last few weeks was the redesign of the template dialog. The template dialog now opens in a simplified mode that lists parameters and their descriptions. (The complex multi-item transclusion mode can be reached by clicking on "Show options" from inside the simplified template dialog.) Template parameters now have a bigger, auto-sizing input box for easier editing.  With today's update, searching for template parameters will become case-insensitive, and required template parameters will display an asterisk (*) next to their edit boxes. In addition to making it quicker and easier to see everything when you edit typical templates, this work was necessary to prepare for the forthcoming simplified citation dialog. The main priority in the coming weeks is building this new citation dialog, with the ultimate goal of providing autofill features for ISBNs, URLs, DOIs and other quick-fills. This will add a new button on the toolbar, with the citation templates available picked by each wiki's community. Concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. Please share your ideas about making referencing quick and easy with the designers.

  • The link tool now tells you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. Pages that exist, but are not indexed by the search engine, are treated like non-existent pages (bug 54361http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54361).
  • Wikitext warnings will now hide when you remove wikitext from the paragraph you are editing.
  • The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu has been slightly redesigned, to introduce larger buttons. Your suggestions for more significant changes to the special character inserter are still wanted.
  • The page options menu (three bars, next to the Cancel button) has expanded. You can create and edit redirect pages, set page options like __STATICREDIRECT__, __[NO]INDEX__ and __[NO]NEWEDITSECTION__, and more.  New keyboard shortcuts are listed there, and include undoing the last action, clearing formatting, and showing the shortcut help window. If you switch from VisualEditor to wikitext editing, your edit will now be tagged.
  • It is easier to edit images. There are more options and they are explained better. If you add new images to pages, they will also be default size.  You can now set image sizes to the default, if another size was previously specified. Full support for upright sizing systems, which more readily adapt image sizes to the reader's screen size, is planned.
  • VisualEditor adds fake blank lines so you can put your cursor there. These "slugs" are now smaller than normal blank lines, and are animated to be different from actual blank lines.
  • You can use the Ctrl+Alt+S or  Command+ Option+S shortcuts to open the save window, and you can preview your edit summary when checking your changes in the save window.
  • After community requests, VisualEditor has been deployed to the Interlingual Occidental Wikipedia, the Portuguese Wikibooks, and the French Wikiversity.
  • Any community can ask for custom icons for their language in the character formatting menu (bold, italic, etc.) by making a request on Bugzilla or by contacting Product Manager James Forrester.

The developers apologize for a regression bug with the deployment on 6 March 2014, which caused the incorrect removal of |upright size definitions on a handful of pages on the English Wikipedia, among others. The root cause was fixed, and the broken pages were fixed soon after.

Looking ahead:  Several template dialogs will become more compact. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. You will be able to see the Table of Contents change live as you edit the page, rather than it being hidden. In-line language setting (dir="rtl") may be offered to a few Wikipedias soon.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on 19 April 2014 at 2000 UTC. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

GOCE March drive wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the April blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here.

Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles.

Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for spotting the original research that was slipped into the Brendan Eich article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stanton foundation[edit]

"He [Sandole] also says that, for the year, he was only paid $40,000, not the $53,690 allocated for the residency. Wikimedia spokesperson Jay Walsh confirms that the remaining $13,690 went toward administrative overhead costs." Could you please give your side of this story? Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

VisualEditor newsletter—April 2014[edit]

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on performance improvements, image settings, and preparation for a simplified citation template tool in its own menu.

  • In an oft-requested improvement, VisualEditor now displays red links (links to non-existent pages) in the proper color. Links to sister projects and external URLs are still the same blue as local links.
  • You can now open templates by double-clicking them or by selecting them and pressing  Return.  This also works for references, images, galleries, mathematical equations, and other "nodes".
  • VisualEditor has been disabled for pages that were created as translations of other pages using the Translate extension (common at Meta and MediaWiki.org). If a page has been marked for translation, you will see a warning if you try to edit it using VisualEditor.
  • When you try to edit protected pages with VisualEditor, the full protection notice and most recent log entry are displayed. Blocked users see the standard message for blocked users.
  • The developers fixed a bug that caused links on sub-pages to point to the wrong location.
  • The size-changing controls in the advanced settings section of the media or image dialog were simplified further. VisualEditor's media dialog supports more image display styles, like borderless images.
  • If there is not enough space on your screen to display all of the tabs (for instance, if your browser window is too narrow), the second edit tab will now fold into the drop-down menu (where the "Move" item is currently housed). On the English Wikipedia, this moves the "Edit beta" tab into the menu; on most projects, it moves the "Edit source" tab. This is only enabled in the default Vector skin, not for Monobook users. See this image for an example showing the "Edit source" and "View history" tabs after they moved into the drop-down menu.
  • After community requests, VisualEditor has been deployed as an opt-in feature at Meta and on the French Wikinews.
The drop-down menu is on the right, next to the search box.

Looking ahead:  A new, locally controlled menu of citation templates will put citations immediately in front of users. You will soon be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) is being developed. In-line language setting (dir="rtl") will be offered as a Beta Feature soon. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Monday, 19 May 2014 at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this on your own page, subscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yay![edit]

You recently reached your 2,000th edit here, congrats :) --Elitre (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

Message from another persnickety nerd[edit]

I noticed that you have heavily promoted some travel vest on your blog recently, even using a promo picture right from their website, and that the company has swiftly thanked you on twitter. Of course you may buy and recommend whatever you like, but did you know that this company has tried to glam up their entry in the past? How about telling them: "Your products are fine, but please tell your PR people to avoid editing wikipedia"? Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

Thanks, Sue, for all the great work, and congratulations in assumption of your new office. Love and hugs, and a little kitty.

Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for everything and an unfortunate thread at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Sue_Gardner.27s_product_blogging[edit]

Hey Sue!

I need to thank you for everything you've done for Wikipedia and the WMF. It looks very much like you've found a good replacement, but there will never be anybody who'll do the ED job as well as you've done it! Best of luck in everything you do in the future.

Now for the unfortunate thread. It strikes me as being a not-so-veiled personal attack against you from a long-banned editor. Perhaps it might be best just to ignore this attack, but I'll ask you 3 questions there that should put the whole issue to rest.

Again, all the best and good luck.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

VisualEditor newsletter—May 2014[edit]

VisualEditor-logo.svg

Did you know?

VisualEditor - Editing References - Cite Pulldown.png

The cite menu offers quick access to up to five citation templates.  If your wiki has enabled the "Cite" menu, press "Cite" and select the appropriate template from the menu.

Existing citations that use these templates can be edited either using the "Cite" tool or by selecting the reference and choosing the "Basic" item in the "Insert" menu.

Read the user guide for more information.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on the new citation tool, improving performance, reducing technical debt, and other infrastructure needs.

The biggest change in the last few weeks is the new citation template menu, labeled "Cite". The new citation menu offers a locally configurable list of citation templates on the main toolbar. It adds or opens references using the simplified template dialog that was deployed last month. This tool is in addition to the "Basic" item in the "Insert" menu, and it is not displayed unless it has been configured for that wiki. To enable this tool on your wiki, see the instructions at VisualEditor/Citation tool.

Eventually, the VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for these citations. When this long-awaited feature is created, you could add an ISBN, URL, DOI or other identifier to the citation tool, and VisualEditor would automatically fill in as much information for that source as possible. The concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog, and your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted.

  • There is a new Beta Feature for setting content language and direction.  This allows editors who have opted in to use the "Language" tool in the "Insert" menu to add HTML span tags that label text with the language and as being left-to-right (LTR) or right-to-left (RTL), like this:  <span lang="en" dir="ltr">English</span>. This tool is most useful for pages whose text combines multiple languages with different directions, common on Right-to-Left wikis.
  • The tool for editing mathematics formulae in VisualEditor has been slightly updated and is now available to all users, as the "Formula" item in the "Insert" menu. It uses LaTeX like in the wikitext editor.
  • The layout of template dialogs has been changed, putting the label above the field.  Parameters are now called "fields", to avoid a technical term that many editors are unfamiliar with.
  • TemplateData has been expanded:  You can now add "suggested" parameters in TemplateData, and VisualEditor will display them in the template dialogs like required ones.  "Suggested" is recommended for parameters that are commonly used, but not actually required to make the template work.  There is also a new type for TemplateData parameters: wiki-file-name, for file names.  The template tool can now tell you if a parameter is marked as being obsolete.
  • Some templates that previously displayed strangely due to absolute CSS positioning hacks should now display correctly.
  • Several messages have changed: The notices shown when you save a page have been merged into those used in the wikitext editor, for consistency.  The message shown when you "Cancel" out of an edit is clearer. The beta dialog notice, which is shown the first time you open VisualEditor, will be hidden for logged-in users via a user preference rather than a cookie.  As a result of this change, the beta notice will show up one last time for all logged-in users on their next VisualEditor use after Thursday's upgrade.
  • Adding a category that is a redirect to another category prompts you to add the target category instead of the redirect.
  • In the "Media" dialog, it is no longer possible to set a redundant border for thumbnail and framed images.
  • There is a new Template Documentation Editor for TemplateData.  You can test it by editing a documentation subpage (not a template page) at Mediawiki.org: edit mw:Template:Sandbox/doc, and then click "Manage template documentation" above the wikitext edit box.  If your community would like to use this TemplateData editor at your project, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.
  • There have been multiple small changes to the appearance:  External links are shown in the same light blue color as in MediaWiki.  This is a lighter shade of blue than the internal links.  The styling of the "Style text" (character formatting) drop-down menu has been synchronized with the recent font changes to the Vector skin.  VisualEditor dialogs, such as the "Save page" dialog, now use a "loading" animation of moving lines, rather than animated GIF images.  Other changes were made to the appearance upon opening a page in VisualEditor which should make the transition between reading and editing be smoother.
  • The developers merged in many minor fixes and improvements to MediaWiki interface integration (e.g., edit notices), and made VisualEditor handle Education Program pages better.
  • At the request of the community, VisualEditor has been deployed to Commons as an opt-in. It is currently available by default for 161 Wikipedia language editions and by opt-in through Beta Features at all others, as well as on several non-Wikipedia sites.

Looking ahead:  The toolbar from the PageTriage extension will no longer be visible inside VisualEditor. More buttons and icons will be accessible from the keyboard.  The "Keyboard shortcuts" link will be moved out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) and inline images is being developed. You will be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. VisualEditor will be available to all users on mobile devices and tablet computers. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 10:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

GOCE June 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!

Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.

Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Seduction community may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • -- are they real?", to weaken her confidence and therefore render her more vulnerable to seduction).<ref>{{Cite news|url = http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/cockblocked-by-redistribution|title =
  • own social value, and "going caveman" is escalating physical contact while reducing verbal contact).<ref>{{Cite news|url = http://www.smh.com.au/world/elliot-rodger-and-the-creepy-world-of-the-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Send word![edit]

When you emerge from the pool, or the deepest rainforest, or the highest mountain valley, or wherever you've hidden yourself away, please let the community know how you are doing and maybe even what's next on the agenda (e.g. glacier watching, World Cup cheering, moose photography). If you need more ideas, just ask - those were off the top of my head.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

VisualEditor global newsletter—June 2014[edit]

VisualEditor-logo.svg
The character formatting menu

Did you know?

The character formatting menu, or "Style text" menu lets you set bold, italic, and other text styles. "Clear formatting" removes all text styles and removes links to other pages.

Do you think that clear formatting should remove links? Are there changes you would like to see for this menu? Share your opinion at MediaWiki.org.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

The VisualEditor team is mostly working to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

  • They have moved the "Keyboard shortcuts" link out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Within dialog boxes, buttons are now more accessible (via the Tab key) from the keyboard.
  • You can now see the target of the link when you click on it, without having to open the inspector.
  • The team also expanded TemplateData: You can now add a parameter type  "date" for dates and times in the ISO 8601 format, and  "boolean" for values which are true or false. Also, templates that redirect to other templates (like {{citeweb}}{{cite web}}) now get the TemplateData of their target (bug 50964). You can test TemplateData by editing mw:Template:Sandbox/doc.
  • Category: and File: pages now display their contents correctly after saving an edit (bug 65349, bug 64239)
  • They have also improved reference editing: You should no longer be able to add empty citations with VisualEditor (bug 64715), as with references. When you edit a reference, you can now empty it and click the "use an existing reference" button to replace it with another reference instead. 
  • It is now possible to edit inline images with VisualEditor. Remember that inline images cannot display captions, so existing captions get removed. Many other bugs related to images were also fixed.
  • You can now add and edit {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and __DISAMBIG__ in the "Page options" menu, rounding out the full set of page options currently planned.
  • The tool to insert special characters is now wider and simpler.

Looking ahead[edit]

The VisualEditor team has posted a draft of their goals for the next fiscal year. You can read them and suggest changes on MediaWiki.org.

The team posts details about planned work on VisualEditor's roadmap. You will soon be able to drag-and-drop text as well as images. If you drag an image to a new place, it won't let you place it in the middle of a paragraph. All dialog boxes and windows will be simplified based on user testing and feedback. The VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for citations. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments and adding rows and columns to tables.

Supporting your wiki[edit]

Please read VisualEditor/Citation tool for information on configuring the new citation template menu, labeled "Cite". This menu will not appear unless it has been configured on your wiki.

If you speak a language other than English, we need your help with translating the user guide. The guide is out of date or incomplete for many languages, and what's on your wiki may not be the most recent translation. Please contact me if you need help getting started with translation work on MediaWiki.org.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 21:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas and Pacific Islands) or on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 9:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East, Asia).

To change your subscription to this newsletter, please see the subscription pages on Meta or the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

GOCE July 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

Updated your userpage on da-wiki[edit]

Hi Sue, I just updated your userpage on da-wiki. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Treats![edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Treats!. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

VisualEditor newsletter—July and August 2014[edit]

VisualEditor-logo.svg

The VisualEditor team is currently working mostly to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

Screenshot of VisualEditor's link tool
Dialog boxes in VisualEditor have been re-designed to use action words instead of icons. This has increased the number of items that need to be translated. The user guide is also being updated.

The biggest visible change since the last newsletter was to the dialog boxes. The design for each dialog box and window was simplified. The most commonly needed buttons are now at the top. Based on user feedback, the buttons are now labeled with simple words (like "Cancel" or "Done") instead of potentially confusing icons (like "<" or "X"). Many of the buttons to edit links, images, and other items now also show the linked page, image name, or other useful information when you click on them.

  • Hidden HTML comments (notes visible to editors, but not to readers) can now be read, edited, inserted, and removed. A small icon (a white exclamation mark on a dot) marks the location of each comments. You can click on the icon to see the comment.
  • You can now drag and drop text and templates as well as images. A new placement line makes it much easier to see where you are dropping the item. Images can no longer be dropped into the middle of paragraphs.
  • All references and footnotes (<ref> tags) are now made through the "Cite" menu, including the "Basic" (manual formatting) footnotes and the ability to re-use an existing citation, both of which were previously accessible only through the "Insert" menu. The "References list" is still added via the "Insert" menu.
  • When you add an image or other media file, you are now prompted to add an image caption immediately. You can also replace an image whilst keeping the original caption and other settings.
  • All tablet users visiting the mobile web version of Wikipedias will be able to opt-in to a version of VisualEditor from 14 August. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu.
  • The link tool has a new "Open" button that will open a linked page in another tab so you can make sure a link is the right one.
  • The "Cancel" button in the toolbar has been removed based on user testing. To cancel any edit, you can leave the page by clicking the Read tab, the back button in your browser, or closing the browser window without saving your changes.

Looking ahead[edit]

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables. Work to support Internet Explorer is ongoing.

Feedback opportunities[edit]

The Editing team will be making two presentations this weekend at Wikimania in London. The first is with product manager James Forrester and developer Trevor Parscal on Saturday at 16:30. The second is with developers Roan Kattouw and Trevor Parscal on Sunday at 12:30.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at the VisualEditor feedback page or by joining the office hours discussion on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 09:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East and Asia) or on Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 16:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Europe).

If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at Meta for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

GOCE July drive and August blitz[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Numbers represent an ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
  2. ^ "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2007-01-23. 
  3. ^ The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.