Would you mind reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Romerson again?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging your request. The indicated action (checking all online references) will be rather time consuming and I'm sorting my weekend plans now. This may not happen right away. - Brianhe (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Case/lang/veirs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the members of alt-countrysupergroupcase/lang/veirs have collectively made more than 30 studio albums? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Case/lang/veirs), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Brianhe, I've had one or two discussions on the talk page of Bell Pottinger over the last year or so. The whole article is quite sprawling and there are quite a few things out of date. As I've posted on the talk page, I've prepared a shorter redraft (see here), which updates a few things and which I hope is an appropriate length and appropriately balanced. Would you mind taking a look when you have a moment? Note my COI - I work for Bell Pottinger. Many thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jthomlinson1: I have a longstanding personal policy of not assisting paid editors, thanks for asking. My position began with thinking on undisclosed paid editors but I'm applying it across the board pending more uniformity/coherence on our community policies regarding editing, disclosure, and procedures and consequences around non-compliance with ToS and guidelines. - Brianhe (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Can you think of anyone who might have a look? Jthomlinson1 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, even stopping to compose this reply is taking away from time I could be spending on other topics that are under-represented on Wikipedia, let alone the other editors who you are asking me to involve. Did you read my essay? I take WP:Systemic bias here very seriously. - Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did – some very interesting stats and I think we all know there's clearly some way to go before Wikipedia's the sum of all human knowledge! Thanks again. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be getting a bit behind with giving out DYK medals for 25 new or expanded articles. I think a few have exceeded the 25 count but I'd like to recognise Valenciano, Random86, Brianhe, EdChem, Raymie, Crispulop, Amgisseman(BYU), The Almightey Drill and Captain Assassin!. Maybe one thing to say is that anyone can give out these awards so do have a go. Meanwhile I have the pleasure of thanking you on behalf of the DYK project, the wiki readers and me. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my link in Racetrack Memories page ?
I wonder why you undid my addition ? Do you think it is useless ? Do you have deep information about this topic ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGUWMT (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some implicit assumptions in your question that you will find to be invalid at Wikipedia. All editors here are in equal standing regarding edits, regardless of their personal expertise. The burden to justify an addition is generally on the editor adding new material. You are advised to familiarize yourself with WP:EXPERT, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR before proceeding down a path which does not look comfortable for you. - Brianhe (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But why you consider this external source unimportant ?! AGUWMT (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The No Spam Barnstar
DataCore page was a mess before you head cleaned it out. Thanks a lot for accepting the challenge. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ducati ST series - merger.
Now that Ducati ST series is well established, perhaps it is time that the proposed merger with the ST2, ST3 & ST4 pages should proceed. I would do it, but I don't know how to mergers! Could you please assist (or else give me some tips)? Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore - now done! Arrivisto (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden notice on outlines
That's just a standard notice at the top of outlines, to let editors know what they are, to alleviate confusion. Not all editors are familiar with outlines. It also lets them know how many outlines there are, and directs them to the entire set at Portal:Contents/Outlines, so they can see the scope of the operation.
Note that there is an effort underway to improve all outlines, according to the established standard, and create new ones, but it has nothing to do with that notice.
Motorcycles is one of the best outlines. It's missing some annotations, but nothing to be worried about.
If you'd like to see what's going on with outlines, see Wikipedia:Community portal#Outlines. And check out the draft namespace, starting at "Outline of".
[1]. I remember there was a group of socks a while back creating articles at random pages and then moving them to new titles to avoid NPP but I can't remember who... SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you create wrong page, please ask for speedy delete rather than blanking.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. Somebody else made it a circular redirect, so I fixed it. - Brianhe (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relative wealth, paid editing
@Doc James: You said that paid editors using Fiverr and such can "become relatively wealthy" by circumventing our ToS and working through socks, etc. I think this is a valid point and made me consider something I have been pondering lately. By the standards of many North Americans, working through Fiverr is not really lucrative and I think many Wikipedians see this as a low-grade threat because they would not do it for that level of compensation. However for many people in the world, it is indeed as you say relatively well compensated. So as more of the world acquires access to the Internet, higher levels of English education, and tools such as Fiverr that serve as conduits to wealthy individuals or organizations in the Global North, the impact on this project becomes greater. Hence the recent proliferation of COIN/SPI investigations pointing towards actors in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uganda, Nigeria, the Phillipines, etc. (Interestingly, the Indian SPIs are often relatively locally-oriented, that is, Indian actors for Indian subjects, most significantly companies and film. Maybe this reflects the greater industrialization and locally available wealth of India?)
What this means for the long-term health of ENWP and for the people attracted to the business of undeclared paid editing, I don't know yet. Talking to WWB recently made me consider this issue more broadly; maybe there is an ethical opportunity for each side that hasn't been sussed out yet. - Brianhe (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing a lot of Pakistani and Indian paid editors working on accounts for Western PR firms through Fiverr. It gives relatively wealthy companies an easy and inexpensive method to alter Wikipedia's content to their clients wishes.
This is one of the greater threats to the neutrality of Wikipedia. Volunteers will eventually be unable to keep up. We may unfortunately eventually fill up with paid spam similar to Google Knol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just something to check on
A sock from this paid COI ring that I blocked has just submitted an unblock request after over a year (last SPI is also over a year old). I'm guessing the ring may be active again, so you or someone else may want to take a look for new activity. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff and Nagle: The very first thing I looked at was Tickmill LTD (User talk:Meeli436) and whaddya know: Tickmill was created over the summer. Some kind of bad joke about ticks comes to mind, but I restrain myself. Anyway, it's a forex trading company, we have been dealing with some of that at COIN lately, I wonder if it is coincidence. - Brianhe (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awdko00 is the sock with the open unblock request. If we can get a few more edits from that sock then an SPI may be possible. —SpacemanSpiff 06:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smehh last edited within 90 days so a CU is possible. This was clearly not a first edit. I'm uncertain what the situation is regarding requesting CU when we don't know who the other socks might be. Might Bbb23 be able to comment on whether this meets #3 or #4 of Wikipedia:CheckUser#Grounds_for_checking? SmartSE (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have little new to say about Awdko00. The unblock request is really compelling: “I am not a crook”. The technical connection between him and TC was always tenuous. He’s still editing from the same location, which is not the usual location of TC.
Smehh and TickmillEsp are Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to each other. The connection between Smehh and TC is also not great. Smehh is Likely to Meeli436, an account I believe I found to be Unrelated to TC last year. I’d block Smehh, though, based on the technical evidence connecting it to TickmillEsp and the behavioral evidence, regardless of whether there’s any connection to TC.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you, I wasn't entirely sure if I should have left it or not. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: It doesn't make a huge difference right now but if the concerning behavior comes up again, the information will be there to facilitate a better response. - Brianhe (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back
Finally digging out after the road trip. Want to pick a new article to work on? Montanabw(talk) 23:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely maybe. I'm involved with a UW class as a wiki ambassador at the moment and am not sure how much time it will end up taking. Let's stay in touch... - Brianhe (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Are you interested in Draft:Hannah Zeitlhofer? I forget who brought this person to my attention, but she might have been mentioned in your presentation at the WikiConferene. - Brianhe (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested. I see that the photo also has Elisabeth Gürtler in it. The title "rider" is a very specific one, representing the "graduate", not the apprentice level... We may want to do some updates on Spanish Riding School as well (actually, see also the user page for User:Conversano Isabella, he's not on en wiki much, but he's around.) Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Brianhe. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.
Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I got your message
Hello. I got your message. Sorry if you're not happy with my changes. Please know I fought to keep that page. I was trying to help, please know that. And I did explain in great detail my changes on that talk page, but after you reverted my change I deleted that message. Perhaps I was too bold with this. Nobody else had jumped on the needed improvements, and since I'd chirped so much to keep it I felt obligated to help. All that aside, please consider your reversion, it has degraded the work terribly. I implore you to reconsider, or produce something better yourself. Your reversion is no where near the improvement I'd made, I'm quite confident. Anyway, good luck with it, I'm going to step back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick beer for your assistance, from the pain-in-the-rear new guy. :) J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
50,000 Challenge
Thanks for helping with the talk page banner. I'm looking forward to tagging new/expanded articles and adding check marks to the challenge's main page, and I'd certainly love your help when you have the time and interest. I wish there the WPUS 'article alerts' identified new articles... ---Another Believer(Talk) 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian. I noticed you had cleaned up a bit of the self-promotional dross on this article. I've completely re-written and re-referenced it and left a stern note at Talk:Tim Holmes. Hopefully the miscreant(s) will take notice, but would you mind putting this on your watchlist? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks for both the cleanup and this note. - Brianhe (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your guidance and detail analysis :) Light2021 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image Sizing for Suzuki GSX-R1000
Hey Brianhe! Is there any way to appropriately resize the image for the page Suzuki GSX-R1000, as per the motorcycle infobox (specifically the photo of the 2001 K1), or at least increase the length of the lead material? The page looks a bit odd as it currently stands, because the lead in text is so short. I did a preview with resizing, which definitely looks better, but I'm not sure how desirable it would be to decrease the image size, just to get an aesthetically pleasing effect. Larger is definitely better and more encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the only other way I can see to fix it would be to pull in material from the body and incorporate it into the lead. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible for you to know what this page will look like on everyone else's screen. If you hard-coded it to be perfect on your screen, it could look like anything on a much smaller or much larger resolution. Not to mention other browswer's font sizes. Set the image widths to "thumb" and the lead image to "thumb|upright=1.35". Portrait images should be "thumb|upright". A few very tall or narrow images might get different values, upright 0.8 or 1.4 maybe. Beyond that, if it doesn't look good to you, go to Special:Preferences and change your default thumbnail size to whatever width that works for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyGopher: I don't really have anything technical to add to what Dennis said. It's important to remember that less than half of Wikipedia readers use desktop PCs (mobile now dominates), so any attempt to tweak pixel parameters to force image sizes to look right is not likely to work. The automagic incorporated in the thumbnail image code is pretty good at handling reader device diversity. Brianhe (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh
Per your recent edits, you guys will probably like this article, [2]. Montanabw(talk) 17:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the most-viewed page for cannabis issues in the US (~1,500 views/day). I think we can streamline it to make it less clunky and more intuitive for readers, especially now that we have state-specific articles for all US states. Your feedback is invited: Talk:Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#Changes_to_chart.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. If you are not familiar with the rather sordid history of the article, see COIN archive 89 and archive 92. It has been a real crud magnet. - Brianhe (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not aware, thanks for the heads up. I happened to come across it after editing on Web Summit, where I saw some names of editors I had not seen before and decided to look at the areas they edit. I have managed to get about 6 socks so far each type I see a tell-tale pattern. While looking at edit histories, I saw this Maxb2011, which immediately looked suspicious. I have contacted an admin on the German Wikipedia, which I believe is where he started; still need to look at what he has done in the French. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAs are often, but not always, COI contributors. I don't immediately see anything that calls out for action in this case. Am I missing something? - Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It reads much like a resume ("She helped small businesses access grants, insurance, and other monetary aid; grew the organization to 30,000 members; and created a variety of programs, including the Retail Attraction Program, which helped more than 600 small businesses") and the article itself is essentially an orphan other than her internal links from her relatives (husband, cousin, etc). FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi I got your massage Why did you massage me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby232332 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby232332: Are you referring to the request to use edit summaries? Well, because I wish you would use edit summaries. And sign talkpage comments too, I guess. - Brianhe (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another fun article
Public domain pancake feed
Don't know about you, but this isn't just a Canadian thing, and a potentially fun article: Pancake_breakfast. Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, we have those in the PNW. Example, this state park fundraiser [3]. And Swedish pancakes here [4] and full newspaper coverage. We're not sure if someone does it for free though. - Brianhe (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered, this is usually called a "pancake feed" isn't it? Maybe regional, I don't know. Lots of google hits, here is a typical one from Nebraska [5].
Articles with phrase "pancake feed" listed above. - Brianhe (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a couple of links to Scandinavian pancake breakfasts above. This might be a good sub-topic for the article. Apparently it's kind of a big deal in certain PNW communities (we have neighborhoods like Ballard and cities like Poulsbo with a high concentration of Swedes, Norwegians and such). - Brianhe (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Abilene, Kansas has had an annual fly-in and free pancake feed for about a quarter century [6]. Brianhe (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live, they are a staple of small churches -- a reward for sitting through the sermon! (and yes, I think there probably is a correlation to Scandanavian roots... Uff da!) Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet
I had gone to the Michael Flynn article and found that citation which had been there for over four months. I only checked to see if the URL was still viable. I've seen Yahoo cited regularly in WP articles. Certainly the Annenberg Center is vastly superior as a source. I would not normally use Yahoo as a source, though they do exercise editorial control, but I wasn't writing a dissertation, merely checking existing content to make sure it was not a dead URL and that the source contained the relevant info. I don't know what you're accusing me of, since "refactoring" doesn't seems to apply remotely to anything I did. I know about as much about computer code as I know about Tungusic. I provided a RSS for Palin's AGW denialism but an IP editor removed it: Global warming denialist.Palin: Global Warming Just "Snake Oil", CBS News, February 9, 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2016. It does however, seem germane to note that a prospective Energy Secretary takes that position. Her scientific credentials also include her believing that the world is less than 7,000 years old and men literally walked with dinosaurs, though those notions are substantially less relevant to the position. Lastly, I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and the only other editor that has ever once taken issue with my USER name was tossed for sockpuppetry years ago. You have far more experience with Wikipedia than I. You don't have to mention my USER name to imply that by characterizing it as "provocative," that I'm not editing in Good Faith. I would think that removal of your comment and an apology by you would be in order. Activist (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't examined enough of your editing to say whether or not it is in good faith, I assume it is. However, I'm surprised that you essentially deny that your chosen username is designed to be provocative, especially in the context of editing political articles. Your editor summary says your chosen top articles include others, like Alaska political corruption probe, Private prison, and Muckraker. You can see how another GF editor would get the idea that you are, well, an activist, rather than a neutral editor. So I'll pass on your offer to make any apologies. - Brianhe (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your response, and that although you wrote about me, you hadn't pinged me, but instead questioned the motivations for my editing. I attended the Wikipedia conference in San Diego last month. I consider myself a Wikipedia "activist." I don't think that's a pejorative or a disqualification. That was the USER name I chose over a decade ago, truthfully without thinking much about it. It doesn't mean that I am not objective nor neutral. I've made almost 5,000 edits to over 1,000 articles. I have considerable knowledge about many fields including criminal justice, and have made edits in many of them. That hardly means that I am subjective. The last edits I made to the Trump Cabinet page, before seeing your comments and leaving a note on your page, were to the vague entries for Kelly Ayotte, which needed improving, and to John Mica's. I thought about enumerating and including the number of terms that each has served, one and 12 respectively, but expected that some might find that excessive, so kept it short. When I went to Mica's article, to add a brief but objective synopsis of his background, I noted that he has chaired the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, and thought mention of that experience would be helpful to Wikipedia readers. However, I discovered that his article contained a number of long-standing errors, most particularly that he had been elected from Florida's 6th C.D., after initially being elected in the 7th District in 1992. I researched that, in the event that he had found himself temporarily in that adjacent district as a result of redistricting, and that then he might have returned to C.D. #7. To do so I had to start by going all the way back to his predecessor's article, who held the seat in the '70s and '80s, and then forward each year for a verification. I found and corrected two erroneous URLs in his article, that showed him as supposedly being in C.D. 6, and there were no results for the next election in 2014. So I researched that election also, both within and without Wikipedia, found an appropriate cite, and included that citation and added text into his article. I don't have much time to spare, so it's a bit of a burden. You are, I am sure, aware how time consuming researching such corrections can be, but I took the time to do it. It seems though, as you are inferring, that I would have had a political motive for so doing, rather than being propelled by any devotion to correcting misinformation. I have left the summaries of my edits on Wikipedia, because I don't care who looks at them. So then, I looked at yours, and found you, on the other hand it seems, have scrubbed your history so it is not accessible to other readers. So, using the criteria you have put forth, should anyone be suspicious of your objectivity because of your hiding your history? Should any editors jump to any conclusions? I feel that you've cast aspersions on my editing, and are unwilling to remove them when asked, a fairly simple request, I feel. But instead you seem to be rationalizing your behavior and doubling down on it. I'm truly sorry to see that. Activist (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist: it is customary to watch another user's talkpage if you expect to participate in a discussion there, but I am pinging you now as a courtesy. Sorry if we got off to a bad start, none of my comments have been meant to disparage you or your contributions. I think the original thing I said which you may have construed as criticism had to do with "refactoring". Let me explain. This series of edits which you made moved citations from one column to another, and made it look as if some facts in the second column were supported by the citation in at least one case that I corrected. I'm assuming this was unintended and did not mean to say otherwise. It looks like we are both committed to the same thing, accuracy in articles, and if you like, I will repeat what I said above at the article's talkpage and we can both move on. - Brianhe (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks much for the explanation. It's appreciated. I had moved the citations from being in the name or photo cells because they obviously referred to the texts in the last of the adjacent cells and I was making an effort at uniformity. Someone had removed the text from a Palin entry because they said it was unsupported, even though that editor would have seen the corpus of the citation they were claiming didn't exist. The citations in the article grew organically and rapidly, I'm guessing, which can always create a problem in any article, especially when they get separated from the original text which they'd modified. (I just did extensive revisions of the James Joseph Richardson article, which was so messy it was scary, and moved citations from mid-sentence to the ends of sentences in another article.) So I didn't do any code changes ("refactored"), which I wouldn't know how to do in any case, just moved the cites so that a reader could pull them up immediately and so any text wouldn't be removed as being supposedly unsupported. I must confess that I thought you were just being pissy and almost ragged on you for something inconsequential, what I thought was your posting of the old photo of an Iñupiat woman, without realizing that it was automatically posted on your USER page. Northern and Northwestern indigenous Alaskans refer to themselves that way, rather than as Inuit, as the photo was titled. Greenlandic Inuit don't have problems with the name, though most prefer the name Kalaallit, themselves, I think (Western Greenlandic people). Anyhow, I'm pleased that it was sorted out. If you want to add any very brief text to clear up the issue on the cabinet article's TALK page, I'd appreciate it. Feel free to remove these ramblings. Thanks again. Activist (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear we don't have a problem going forward, it's always my aim to settle misunderstandings without drama. So anyway I'm not sure what the Inuit thing is about, it was probably a picture posted automatically by the WP:Picture of the Day script which I had no editorial control over and I don't even remember that particular image. I hope that this reply on the cabinet talkpage is sufficient to put this issue to bed. - Brianhe (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate very much your taking care of that. I mentioned the picture of the Seward Peninsula Iñupiat woman only in jest. The pictures on your USER page automatically rotate daily, I expect. The photo's title had been changed to remove "(Iñupiat)" for some reason, probably by whomever selects the Daily photo, leaving only "Inuit." I figured it was probably 100 years or so old because she did not have chin tattoos, which were meant to signify pubescence, but which were abandoned mostly due to pressures applied by missionaries who began to arrive in the Northwest Arctic in the late 19th century. I think they're experiencing something of a renascence these days. Activist (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sign comments or use edit summaries
Hi Brianhe I am not all that good at sign comments or use edit summaries if you can. can you please edit the Proposed cabinet of Donald Trump page. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby232332 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello Bri.
Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.
New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Brianhe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
We now have 814 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. Mid July to 01 Oct 2016
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
.[reply]
Undid revisions on Jose Roberto Antonio page
Hi Brianhe,
I don't understand why you undid all of my revisions. I took out several inaccurate statements by OceanFlynn (#1-2) and other inaccurate statements that are out of context when compared to the article that was by ManilaTimes
1 - Jose Roberto Antonio is not a special envoy to the US by President Duterte, his dad is (Jose E.B. Antonio)
2 - the statement “He is a board director of Operation Smile Philippines which was unveiled in 2012 by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump” – that’s new and it sounds odd. The Trumps didn’t unveil Operation Smile Philippines.
3 - As for the part that says the article “characterized Antonio's personal spending on vanity projects and relatively modest philanthropic spending as indicative of inequality in the Philippines where the average family income in 2013 was $4,988” this is inaccurate if you read the original article by ManilaTimes and the use of the line “the average family income in 2013 was $4,988”. It seems to be a mishandling of the article.
This is what the original line says in context:
One could sense a slight hint of disgust over such display of wealth in the Vanity Fair article, pointing out that the $15 million cost of the Antonio’s house “is in somewhat stark contrast to the average annual Filipino-family income of $4,988.”
4 - I do not understand what the original poster of the above is trying to portray, if he wants to say that Jose Roberto Antonio spends more on himself unlike other tycoons who fund schools (as the article points out) then he should rephrase his statement and use the ManilaTimes article properly.
