This user won the Quarter Million Award by bringing "#Million award" to GA status.
This user won the Million Million Award by bringing "#Million award" to GA status.
This user won the Million Million Award by bringing "#Quarter Million Award for Valentina Tereshkova" to GA status.
This user helped "Mae Jemison" become a good article on 4 June 2019.
This user helped "Yuri Gagarin" become a good article on 18 June 2019.
This user helped "Luna 2" become a good article on 11 July 2019.
This user helped "Valentina Tereshkova" become a good article on 12 July 2019.
This user helped "Elizabeth Willing Powel" become a good article on 29 February 2020.
This user helped "R. A. Hardie" become a good article on 6 April 2020.
This user helped File:Mae Carol Jemison.jpg become a featured picture on 3 June 2019.
This user helped File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000630.jpg become a featured picture on 7 June 2019.
This user helped File:Alan Bean NASA portrait (S69-38859).jpg become a featured picture on 28 June 2019.
This user helped File:Yuri Gagarin (1961) - Restoration.jpg become a featured picture on 3 July 2019.
This user helped File:Ronald McNair, Guion Bluford, and Fred Gregory (S79-36529, restoration).jpg become a featured picture on 10 July 2019.
This user helped File:Sally Ride (1984).jpg become a featured picture on 27 July 2019.
This user helped File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg become a featured picture on 5 August 2019.
This user helped File:Guion Bluford.jpg become a featured picture on 7 August 2019.
This user helped File:Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928).webm become a featured picture on 2 September 2019.
This user helped File:Bessie Coleman in 1923.jpg become a featured picture on 5 October 2019.
This user helped File:WASPS-Women-Airforce-Service-Pilots-Training-1943-Army-Navy-Screen-Magazine-No.-16.ogv become a featured picture on 6 October 2019.
This user helped File:Central hidroeléctrica de Walchensee, Kochel, Baviera, Alemania, 2014-03-22, DD 04.JPG become a featured picture on 14 October 2019.
This user helped File:Alexei Leonov.jpg become a featured picture on 23 October 2019.
This user helped File:Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, 1969.ogv become a featured picture on 26 October 2019.
This user helped File:Eileen Collins (S93-E-5033, 1999-07-24).jpg become a featured picture on 29 October 2019.
This user helped File:Japanmakaken im Jigokudani Monkey Park bei der Fellpflege.webm become a featured picture on 1 November 2019.
This user helped File:MJK 54041 Barockträdgården (Drottningholm).jpg become a featured picture on 5 November 2019.
This user helped File:Dorie Miller.jpg become a featured picture on 30 January 2020.
This user helped File:Sojourner Truth, 1870 (cropped, restored).jpg become a featured picture on 19 February 2020.
This user helped get "R. A. Hardie" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 13 April 2018.
This user helped get "Bob Honey Who Just Do Stuff" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 3 May 2018.
This user helped get "This Is America (song)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 16 May 2018.
This user helped get "Women Disobey" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 20 July 2018.
This user helped get "Landsat 4" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 10 December 2018.
This user helped get "Mark Angel (producer)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 29 March 2019.
This user helped get "Roger B. Chaffee" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 17 July 2019.
This user helped get "Eleanor C. Pressly" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 17 July 2019.
This user helped get "Michael Collins (astronaut)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Sputnik 1" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Mae Jemison" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Luna 2" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "David Scott" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Yuri Gagarin" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Zond 5" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Valentina Tereshkova" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Félicette" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 July 2019.
This user helped get "Charles Bassett" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 25 July 2019.
This user helped get "Elliot See" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 25 July 2019.
This user helped get "J. Michael Mendel" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 3 October 2019.
This user helped get "Fred Rogers" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 22 November 2019.
This user helped get "George P. Kent" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 23 November 2019.
This user helped get "Laura Cooper" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 December 2019.
This user helped get "Elizabeth Willing Powel" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 21 February 2020.
This user helped get "Rain (Van Gogh)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 30 March 2020.
This user helped get "Rip Rapson" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 12 May 2020.
This user helped get "Charles Kelman" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 23 May 2020.
This user helped get Rob Hiaasen listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 2 July 2018.
This user helped get Richard Swift (singer-songwriter) listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 5 July 2018.
This user helped get Kimishige Ishizaka listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 9 July 2018.
This user helped get Laurent Gbagbo listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 17 January 2019.
This user helped get Katharina Lindner listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 12 February 2019.
This user helped get Bibi Ferreira listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 14 February 2019.
This user helped get Andrea Levy listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 15 February 2019.
This user helped get Li Rui (politician) listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 16 February 2019.
This user helped get Ethel Ennis listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 19 February 2019.
This user helped get Arata Isozaki listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 6 March 2019.
This user helped get Jacques Loussier listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 7 March 2019.
This user helped get Birch Bayh listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 17 March 2019.
This user helped get Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 22 March 2019.
This user helped get Mike Cofer (linebacker) listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 23 March 2019.
This user helped get Eunetta T. Boone listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 25 March 2019.
This user helped get Geoff Harvey listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 31 March 2019.
This user helped get 2019 Slovak presidential election listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 6 April 2019.
This user helped get Les Reed (songwriter) listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 16 April 2019.
This user helped get 2019 Ukrainian presidential election listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 22 April 2019.
This user helped get Mavis Pusey listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 3 May 2019.
This user helped get Apolo Nsibambi listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 30 May 2019.
This user helped get Toni Morrison listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 6 August 2019.
This user helped get 71st Primetime Emmy Awards listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 26 September 2019.
This user helped get Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 27 September 2019.
This user helped get Alexei Leonov listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 11 October 2019.
This user helped get Nick Tosches listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 21 October 2019.
This user helped get 2019 World Series listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 31 October 2019.
This user helped get George Laurer listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 11 December 2019.
This user helped get Pervez Musharraf listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 18 December 2019.
This user helped get Impeachment of Donald Trump listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 19 December 2019.
This user helped get 2019–20 Lebanese protests listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 23 January 2020.
This user helped get Jim Lehrer listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 4 February 2020.
This user helped get B. Smith listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 23 February 2020.
This user helped get North East Delhi riots listed on the "In the News" section of the main page on 26 February 2020.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Leave me a message


Women in Green logo.svgThis user makes women green.

Women in Red logo.svgThis user is a member of WikiProject Women in Red (redlinks→blue)

An illustration of a crowd of women marching with various weapons
An illustration of the Women's March on Versailles, 5 October 1789

The Signpost
27 September 2020

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Coffeeandcrumbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Welcome to the Wiki Portals project! Serenesage (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Women Disobey

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Women Disobey, Pasha Patriki, VELD Music Festival, Bob Honey Who Just Do Stuff, for tireless gnomish work such as adding the date format to hundreds of articles, for saving for posterity – user with a delicious name, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Million award[edit]

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Yuri Gagarin (estimated annual readership: 1,080,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Kees08 (Talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Mae Jemison (estimated annual readership: 250,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Kees08 (Talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Double the award! Congratulations. Feel free to add Gagarin to the WP:Million Award page as well. Kees08 (Talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

As08-16-2593.jpg The Visionary Barnstar
Dear Coffeeandcrumbs,

I just want to be the first to congratulate you for your vision and your perseverance to create the first all-space DYK set for July 21. In fact, the whole appearance of the Main Page is a credit to your pioneering vision. It just went live! Enjoy basking in the glow of your stellar achievement! Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, thank you for my first barnstar ever! And thank you for your patient and diligent assistance in getting this going. I should say that just as much credit should go to User:Kees08 without whom this would never have been possible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
And a special thanks to Cwmhiraeth. Your act of bravery did not go unnoticed!!! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Main page compliment[edit]

Hi, it appeared to me like you did a lot of the work in planning how to recognize the Apollo 11 anniversary this week, and I wanted to make sure you saw a compliment from a reader on WP:VPM. Face-smile.svg (I would have mentioned it where the discussions were but seems like there were many in different places.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree completely. Great job with the Main page coverage of the 50th anniversary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
21 July 2019
Lilien, Botanischer Garten Münster.jpg
... with thanks from QAI
  • Joining the chorus: quality job on that project! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well done, it was a great way to celebrate the anniversary. Stephen 23:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Especially since you never voted in an RfA before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your help! Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 09:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2019. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

You have been made a hero of Wikipedia labour![edit]

Sickle and Hammer.jpg For your service to the motherland
For creating Soviet space engineer Konstantin Bushuyev, you have been awarded a Hero of Wikipedia Labour! Now both you and Bushuyev can have matching awards. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
CaptainEek, this is the best. Thanks! Our coverage of the soviet space programme needs so much improvement. You should join us at Alexei Leonov as we work towards GA. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for picking up the volunteer task I put at ITNC about the Herman Boone page citations. —Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Valentina Tereshkova[edit]

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Valentina Tereshkova (estimated annual readership: 370,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work promoting this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar for you[edit]

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
For good and thoughtful comments during a RM discussion. NickCT (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey bud, quick note to let you know I was impressed by the move discussion you raised here. It's sorta fascinating how controversial "Death of..." article title moves can be, even when the logic seems obvious. Perhaps all the controversy that surrounds these talks reflects the emotion that surrounds the subject of death and dying. Don't get discouraged if the RM doesn't work. Emotion often trumps reason over the short term. But in the end, the truth will out. NickCT (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

NickCT, I thank you for the kind words. These discussions are difficult but I believe they are important. It is crucial that we question our own preconceptions; objectivity and NPOV are paramount. I always ask myself, what would an alien species who speak perfect English but have no emotions give as the title of this subject? I like to say that we are all biased and we must actively fight that bias. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

barnstar[edit]

BLP Barnstar.png The BLP Barnstar
For re-creating Rip Rapson without the serious problems it had before. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Featured picture![edit]

Eva Le Gallienne (mnwp.275003, cropped restoration).jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Eva Le Gallienne (mnwp.275003, cropped restoration).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MrClog (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Sojourner Truth, 1870 (cropped, restored).jpg scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Sojourner Truth, 1870 (cropped, restored).jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-06-19. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth

Sojourner Truth (c. 1797 – 1883) was an American abolitionist and women's rights activist. Born into slavery in Swartekill, New York, she escaped with her infant daughter to freedom in 1826. After going to court to recover her son in 1828, she became the first black woman to win such a case against a white man. Her original name was Isabella Baumfree; she changed her name to Sojourner Truth when she became a Methodist on Pentecost Sunday, 1843. She chose this name because she heard the Spirit of God calling on her to preach the truth, telling her friends: "The Spirit calls me, and I must go", and left to make her way through the land, preaching about the abolition of slavery. During the Civil War, she helped recruit black troops for the Union Army, and after the war, she tried unsuccessfully to secure land grants from the federal government for former slaves.

This photograph of Truth was taken around 1870, accompanied by the caption "I sell the shadow to support the substance", emphasizing her financial acumen. The image is now in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery.

Photograph credit: Randall Studio; restored by Coffeeandcrumbs

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Coffeeandcrumbs,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/August 3, 2020[edit]

Thanks for working on this. For blurbs, always check the talk page of the FAC first. - Dank (push to talk) 10:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Also, the August 2 one was at TFAR (which I don't generally check). - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Another one you're welcome to fix (if you're interested) ... the Aug 5 blurb is sitting in the usual place, feeling very lonely, WT:Featured article candidates/Eurasian Crag Martin/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 10:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The TFAR is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Trials of Mana. The blurb I wrote included "has been announced", but since then, it's been released (in April). - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
July
Thistles, Lorch.jpg
pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

+ just summer greetings, with thanks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, how are you? I hope you are safe and your summer is sunny and cool. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, see my talk, click on "building bridges" perhaps. Hot today, but bearable. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you please watch the TFA tomorrow? It's by a friend who is no longer here. When he was, he'd say ignore the TFA on its day and clean up the following day, - but I think we could do better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I am doing great! It is muggy and hot where I am.
Sure I will watch the page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
That day went well, no hate, no vandalism. (We were afraid at some point that the article might go to be reviewed for FA quality, but worked hard then to make the 2007 product meet more recent standards.) - Different topic: you said at some point you'd write Main page history manually if needed, and I'd much like it today, for three women pictured, including Liselotte Funcke. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, looks like the bot already recorded it at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 6. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing at an error in my date format ;) - and good to know. There were some missing, though, as far as I remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The featured topic is a wonderful tribute to him. Nice work! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match[edit]

Hey, as you have participated in the peer review, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article for FA, in case you wanted to comment. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have a moment[edit]

Hi C&C, I know you're working on your Powell FAC, but if you have a free moment and are interested in doing a FAC review, I have Bernard A. Maguire pending at the moment. Sadly, it hasn't gotten much attention. Ergo Sum 00:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Chabad of Poway[edit]

Thank you for your edit. The only problem I see is that by removing the chronological order from the events, the statement that he "stepped down" as leader of the synagogue in 2019 stands on its own, when in actuality the synagogue forced him out when they learned about the fraud scheme that month. I removed his excuse that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I have made this edit which I think takes care of your above concern. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. But the action switches back and forth there. I moved the rabbinical position to a separate paragraph. Does that work? Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, this is probably fine but the best order would be chronological: "The FBI and IRS began investigating ... in 2016" >> describe allegations >> "stepping down" of Goldstein in late 2019 >> indicate guilty plea and restitution in 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chi Chi DeVayne[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 21 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chi Chi DeVayne, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of former Muslims on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth Willing Powel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Multiple pronouns[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Multiple pronouns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Crossroads -talk- 03:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

My lying eyes.[edit]

Can you please not escalate this further? One personal attack suffices. I do not have an account on ruqqus and was only vaguely aware of its existence before this debacle. I did not read that post until it was posted on ANI. Kleuske (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, you misunderstood me. Apparently, I misunderstood you as well. By AGF, I thought you were excusing the actions of the SPAs.
I do not think what you did restoring the C&P move was a bad thing. But the end result is that gaming the system is working for the white supremacists. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
If you talk about “Your lying eyes”, you can hardly blame others for not interpreting your meaning correctly. I did not misunderstand, you expressed yourself rather clumsily. And that is me assuming good faith. Also, please do not devaluate the term “White supremacist”, it is not equivalent to “someone with a different opinion”. Kleuske (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Kleuske, your objections have been duly noted. Thank you. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment about protection pages[edit]

Hello, I'm 110.137.166.230 i told that you requesting extended confirmed protection for Talk:Kenosha riot. But there was a content dispute in the page. it is unusual to have the content dispute on the talk page, Rather than requesting ECP, I Want you to ping a administrators to fully protected the talk page and give the administrator choice whether to move it or not, or at least report them to ANI which will take administrators action for any behaviour conducted by users. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed is sufficient. We should keep the page as unprotected as possible. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Powel[edit]

Hi C&C, I know I'm giving you a hard time on the FAC, and I know its stressful. I also know it it will be an article that I will eventually support, some day or other, given your evident tireless dedication. But I don't think its there yet, and that not to say its not a great achievement. FAC can be a bear, this is just a note to say keep on hanging in there and don't take it so seriously, or personally or anything...have been in your shoes a few times (eg am currently being eaten alive on the talk of Honan Chapel!); am being picky so that standards are kept and that, in the long term, getting the star is more meaningful. Ceoil (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, if you added a thousand comments without editorializing, I would have simply responded to each one and made my best attempt to fix the prose. However, I do not appreciate the animosity and terse judgmental comments you interject throughout. From my point of view, it seems to be an attempt to derail the FAC. This is my very first FAC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Congrads bty. Am delighted and it is well deserved. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from Venicescapes (not coordinated with above)[edit]

Hello. I wanted to write to you on your talk page and hence off the FAC record. The article has undoubtedly come a long way and has been greatly expanded and enhanced since its nomination. You should be proud. Of course, a source review is still needed, but I am not in the position to do that.

As I initially noted, I'm not qualified to comment on the subject itself, not having specific expertise. So I can support the article only to the extent that it is comprehensive and neutral and appears to be well-researched. However, I think it will be difficult for you to overcome the strong opposition that has been expressed by Ceoil. Also, Anchor break seems to have a number of lingering concerns regarding content. In retrospect, as Ceoil notes, the nomination may have been premature. So, I’m wondering if your best strategy at this point would be to withdraw the nomination and work with some willing editors, myself included, to review the sources and perfect the article further. I don’t want to discourage you, and if you want to continue, I can support those aspects of the article that I can address. But this may not be the best way to reach the goal of FA. Please let me know your thoughts.Venicescapes (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I would like to continue if possible. Do you have further comments? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I respect your wishes and will add my support on the basis of those aspects that I was able to review. Again, I can't testify as to the sources. At present, I don't have other comments. Best wishes for your success.Venicescapes (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Venicescapes, please indicate your support on the FAC whenever you are comfortable doing so. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll probably be able to get to it tomorrow. If at any point you need assistance or have questions, feel free to ask.Venicescapes (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Other tangentially related commentary[edit]

I will say, gee fizz. This has been much more in-depth than my first FA for sure. But it's probably done more good for the article regardless, which is more important than bling in the end. GMGtalk 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I agree. Anyway the review ends, I am happy with what resulted. In hindsight, the article probably needed more development before bringing to FAC. I have learned a valuable lesson. What do you think should be our next step? I've kinda lost track what more we should do to respond to comments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I know. It's gotten a bit hard to track. We may have fared better if we had gone to WP:GCE first maybe. I am not convinced, but had considered we should get up with Sam, get with GCE, look it over a bit, and try a second nom. Maybe we should ask one of the FAC coordinators what their opinion is? I've only ever done one FA. So I'm hardly an expert. GMGtalk 21:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, as Venicescapes suggests above, it maybe smart to withdraw the nom and invite Venicescapes, Tagishsimon, and Sam (if she is available) to the talk page for further review for comprehensiveness. Once that is handled, we could ask GCE for a copy edit. However, I have heard rumors that some at GCE do more harm than good. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe the others you've pinged have opinions. I dunno. I'm...maybe a bit MacArthur at times in my use of archaic language and maybe that's caused part of the issue. GMGtalk 22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Criticism of Hinduism on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Picture of the day[edit]

On September 7th, the Tauride Palace is due to be POTD, at Template:POTD/2020-09-07. In fact there are two photographs of the palace, as you can see here. I think it would be good to have both for POTD rather than them appearing separately on different days. What do you think? If you approve the idea, can you organise it? I will rewrite the caption to suit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I put them together. I think with two images that is better. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • Free Hong Kong Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
  • IndonesiaHaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
  • England Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

September[edit]

September
Dahlias, Walsdorf.jpg
Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you for help with the blurb!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RM[edit]

FWIW, I think you could have just moved Shooting of > Killing of rather than opening a formal discussion. I suspect Drmies was just in a hurry when they created it, and I don't see that there's been a previous attempt to move that was reverted. —valereee (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, no. This has been such a contentious subject for so long that it is better to be cautious. While it seems obvious to me, some editors have argue over and over again to keep these "Shooting of .." titles despite the title's pro-police connotations and perhaps racist undertones. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly not a wrong move to open a discussion. :) —valereee (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, told you so. This is what I am talking about. Police are special. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Or Black people aren't. Those two categories, compared, ought to be enough for a sitewide RfC on what terms we use, as we clearly need set policy. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I created File:Death or Killing or Murder.svg with that in mind. But when I told some people about it, they got bogged down in the minutiae. They sought perfection, the enemy of good. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that's great, but maybe it's trying to do too much. —valereee (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, that is what I meant by people got bogged down in minutiae. The original version, before people asked for changes, was much simpler. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think we need to narrow the focus to deaths in police custody and keep it there. IMO, this is a racism issue, not a MOS issue. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, thank so much!!! for finally seeing what I have been railing about for the past year. I have come close to quitting Wikipedia over this issue. I was furious two days ago when I saw "fatal shooting" at DYK. Hence, why I broke my own rule and created a user page for myself. I am in tears. It feels so good for someone else to see it for what it is: racial bias. Racial bias on Wikipedia manifesting in such a prominent place, the title of articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that the bias on the project has caused you pain. I just wanted to say that I expect your user page to receive pushback, one day, so I wanted to just alert you to that. It may not be today or tomorrow but eventually, some editor will see the page and will see it as polemic and not valid criticism. Thanks for your work. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Liz, thank you for the kind words, and gentle and genteel criticism. I have made a small change to it to ensure that people realize it is an "essay[], perspective[], personal philosophy, [or] comment[] on Wikipedia matters" as allowed by WP:UPGOOD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

NYP as source and more[edit]

By chance I read the ref you gave on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buidhe

that is https://www.cjr.org/first_person/new-york-post-reporting-lessons.php -> "S.I. COLLEGE BOOTS ITS PERVY PUPIL".

Eye opening. It will also affect how I deal with BLP here on Wiki. Zezen (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, "temba with his eyes open!" We are much too quick to add long sections of controversy, allegations, and crime. We have ruined people's lives. We can at times be evil. We do not realize that some publications elevate non-notable crimes to a national audience. Child predators are repugnant, but most child predators are not notable. Most crimes are not notable. We do not have to include every crime. We do not have to include every lawsuit. People get sued all the time. A crime or lawsuit does not make a person notable and every crime or lawsuit is not notable on an article about a person. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

So true. But then: POV is what makes us tick (And I am guilty as charged, having edited NAMBLA recently). Think of WP vs Nupedia case.

Bows Zezen (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Google's Ngram facility[edit]

It is really easy to make mistakes with some of the computer facilities available. You suggested this Ngram, but it generates two related error messages. The problem is that it cannot do a case-insensitive search at the same time as going combinations. I did parametric testing and think that this Ngram is what you wanted to do. The numbers are much larger 1,813,261 and 839,062 for Kiev and Kviv in 2019 instead of 3,161 and 2,263.

With the corrected results, Kyiv is not rising exponentially. If you are interested I posted a table of 2019 results at User talk:TaivoLinguist#Kiev/Kyiv results with Google Ngrams. Taivo and I have participated in name discussions for Ukrainian cities for years.

Several things are clear on Wikipedia: we all make mistakes (including me), the editor I disagree with over one issue I will probably agree with on another issue, and people change their minds over time. Good luck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also beware of one year changes - look at Ngram for British English 2014-2019. The message there appears to be that in 2018 Kyiv was nearly as popular as Kiev, but lost its popularity in 2019. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1, I wonder if Google Ngram accounts for reprints. When a 2010 book is reprinted in 2014 and 2019, does it count appearances in all three? Because this would have a huge effect in slowing down a change. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I have investigated this question. I think @TaivoLinguist: might also be interested.
I did a search on Google Books for "Midshipman Easy",[1] and it shows a year for each. As far as I know, there has only ever been one book called "Midshipman Easy" (published in 1836 and still in print). The year shown will be the year used by Ngram. I needed a book to compare it with and chose "The Price of Blood"; I was thinking of Semenov's 1910 book, but it turns out that many books have that title.[2]
I next did an Ngram comparing "Midshipman Easy" with "The Price of Blood".[3] Try pressing the "case insensitive button" (on is blue, off is white); it massively changes the graphs.
When case sensitive with smoothing 0, Nrram produces a value of 15142 for "Midshipman Easy" for 1800, which seemed implausible because the book was published in 1836. So I did a search on Google Books for "Midshipman Easy" with the date range set as 1 January 1800 to 1 January 1801.[4]
  • Some of the Google Books hits (like this one) are genuine in the sense that it was published in 1800, and the words "midshipman" and "easy" appear on the same page (though not together). Since this example shows them not capitalised, it should not appear in a cases-sensitive Ngram for "Midshipman Easy".
  • Some of the Google Books hits are for books with wrong metadata on the date.[5][6] These are books that talk about or list other books, and hence have "Midshipman Easy" capitalised.
So the answer to your question is that a book with three editions with different dates will probably be treated as three books with separate dates.
From the point of view of someone programming a tool like Ngram, it is not easy to decide whether it should or not. People today are still buying (and presumably reading) new copies of "Midshipman Easy", so in a very real sense its words are still current, even though it was first published 184 years ago. And yet they were written all that time ago.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Culture bound ideas and terms[edit]

Re your example. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Tamarian_language

This is nothing. Try reading the original uncommented (yet translated into EN) I-Ching:

Hexagram 35 is named 晉 (jìn), "Prospering". Other variations include "progress" and "aquas". Its inner trigram is ☷ (坤 kūn) field = (地) earth, and its outer trigram is ☲ (離 lí) radiance = (火) fire.

Etc. Only this. Yet each is a lexem, highly contextual vs the other ones.

10000+ books, over thousands of years (!) where written about what it could mean. Zezen (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, I bet every time a person wrote one of those 10000+ books, each book itself changed the meaning of the hexagram. Just how the overuse of the journalese phrase "rioting and mayhem" changed the meaning of mayhem. Mayhem used to mean "the intentional maiming of another person". Now, we understand it to mean almost the same thing as "chaos". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed:
From Middle English mayme, mahaime, from Anglo-Norman mahaim (“mutilation”), from Old French mahaign (“bodily harm, loss of limb”), from Proto-Germanic *maidijaną (“to cripple, injure”) (compare Middle High German meidem, meiden (“gelding”), Old Norse meiða (“to injure”), Gothic 𐌼𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌾𐌰𐌽 (maidjan, “to alter, falsify”)), from Proto-Indo-European *mey- (“to change”). More at mad. The original meaning referred to the crime of maiming, the other senses derived from this.
Meaning #1 may have arisen by popular misunderstanding of the common journalese expression "rioting and mayhem".
Still, it is not as charged or pernicious as e.g. "homophobia", instead of aversion to homosexuality (got good RSes for that claim). Or good ol' "fasciscm" already meaningless in the 1940s, see Orwell's article about the same: https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc etc.
Newspeak is much worse. Myself I lived in a "republican and people" country, this term in its very name, for 18 years, with anti-societal one-party system and eternal love to a semi-neighbouring country in its constitution (not kidding). Or think of this country, so uber-democratic that democracy is also in its name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Could be much worse.
Bows,
Zezen (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Zezen, why is this a redlink Republican and People’s Republic of China? Is the official name at China wrong? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So it seems. Countries select their official English names (E.g. Belarus, Czechia...), so:

officially the People's Republic of China (PRC)
Zezen (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding clerking duties on Talk:Kiev[edit]

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs. There is a discussion here (User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's_behaviour_at_Talk:Kiev) where another user mentioned you and said that there was some misunderstanding on your part when you asked User:Kahastok to do clerking and unhide Mzajac's vote. Could you please respond in that discussion and clarify? Thank you,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Homespun movement[edit]

Hello there. I think I may have unintentionally upset you by editing Homespun movement. Was just trying to help but will leave your article be! Best of luck with it. Seems like a great addition to the encyclopedia. Enby (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Enby, you have not upset me at all. I am happy you are here to help. I am pretty sure your addition is likely appropriate. But I like to keep a strict adherence to adding citations for everything. If I believed it was incorrect, I would have deleted it. I placed a [citation needed] on it only because of just that, it needs a citation. I may find one for it some time later. Until then, there is no issue with letting it stay. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! <3[edit]

Hi Coffeeandccrumbs! There's a user vandalising the Killing of Daniel Prude wiki. Thanks for reverting his changes! He has got many warnings on his page for vandalizing content with a racist intentionality and users constantly undo his edits but he continues to publish them every few seconds though... He has been reported to the admins, how can we speed along the process of blocking him? Hope it gets solved! Lots of love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talkcontribs) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

policy workshop[edit]

Hey, C&C! I surprisingly and unfortunately didn't get much input at WikiProject BLM, but I've worked this up and am thinking of worskshopping it. Would you take a look?

I’ve noticed deaths of Black people by police action/in police custody attract large numbers of new editors to an article, often there with an agenda. Please understand I am not accusing any experienced editors as such articles of intentional bias. But based on the categories (it's been changing in recent weeks as this issue has been discussed in various places, so isn't as compelling as it once was, but we still need to fix it):

Category:Black people shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States

Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States

…it appears we may be more likely to, for example, title an article Shooting of rather than Killing of/Homicide of if the victim is Black. I think this is a bad look, and I think in the very narrow case of deaths in police custody/by police action, we need policy to prevent that from happening.

I’d like to workshop the following:

  • “Death of” for people who have died of whatever cause while in police custody/while interacting with police, when cause of death hasn’t been ruled on by whatever local body is authorized to make a ruling (or if it’s been ruled accidental.)
  • “Homicide of” (or “Suicide of”) for such deaths that have been ruled on by whatever local authority makes that ruling, but the death hasn’t been ruled by a court action as a murder. Manslaughter convictions would remain at this title. (I believe “Homicide of” is more neutral than “Killing of.” In some dictionaries, “Killing of” is defined as an intentional killing. This is a violation of WP:COMMONTERM, but I believe it's justified IAR because we need to prevent police-related deaths of Blacks from being titled differently from deaths of Whites.)
  • “Murder of” for such deaths if there's a murder conviction. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, I think you conflate the dictionary definition of "intent" with the criminal definition of "intent". A dictionary definition of intent does not mean the perpetrator intended to commit a crime, only that they intended to cause the death of. Whether that killing was justified or not, or criminal or not, does not factor into the dictionary definition.
    Police, whenever they shoot a suspect, intend to kill. This is established in practice, policy and training. A police officer is required by training and policy not to shoot to wound.
    Criminal intent requires a knowledge and understanding that the act is criminal. When dictionaries define killing as causing the death of a person deliberately or intentionally, they do not mean to say with criminal intent. They just mean it was not accidental.
    I would oppose this proposal because "homicide" is not a common term and in most cases the have not been found guilty of homicide. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, it's probably a pipe dream, then. NM. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, sorry, I think I shot you down too quickly. There is no harm in discussing it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm trying to find a place where, right now, we can find something that is possible. If we insist that it be everything we ever wanted, there'll be pushback. Let's get what is possible. I think "Homicide of" is possible. It's possible that in the future, policy for "Killing of" is possible. I considered using 'Either "Killing of" or "Homicide of"' but again, that puts it into human judgement, and in this specific narrow case, I don't think we should leave it to judgement at each article. It's too open to the feeling of false consensus in the case of articles that get large numbers of new editors there to defend the police. I think some very formal "Homicide of" isn't as arguable with. I don't really care whether it's at Killing of or Homicide of. I don't think that's really important. I just want it to be the same for both Blacks and Whites. That's my feeling. —valereee (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I will not stand in the way. It is certainly an improvement. I do fear people will object to the use of a legal term but, who knows, I may be wrong.
On second thought, homicide itself is not illegal by definition. It is only homicide without justification that is illegal. Self-defense and legal executions for example are homicides. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, this means the only logical argument against "Homicide of ..." is that homicide is not a common term. That does not seem like a huge impediment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
My feeling is that we can set up redirects for "Killing of" or "Shooting of" or whatever the common terms are. This is something that simply needs to prevent systemic bias. It may not be perfect, but it may be a case of IAR w/re commonterm. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think it's a bit of an impediment, honestly. "Homicide of" is a very unusual phrase to use, indeed the word "Homicide" is as well. It just doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think it's natural to many. People would probably argue it's very rarely going to fit the bill as the COMMONNAME for any such killing. "Killing of" is likely to be hearty debate I suppose but maybe, after recent articles and lengthy discussions, it could be more acceptable? It'd definitely be my preference. Someone might want to do some data collection, numerically, how many articles we have that start with each prefix? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Quarry. 1,475 starting with Murder of, 260 with killing, 1,471 with death, 9 with homicide, 260 for shooting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I truly could not care less which we settle on as long as we settle on one phrase rather than using one phrase more often for Blacks and one more often for Whites. All I want is for us to find one that we can get agreement on. For purposes of reader convenience we can use redirects. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the first thing we should ask at an RfC is "Should we ensure deaths of Blacks in police encounters/custody aren't titled differently than those of whites? Yes or No?"
And then go from there to find the actual best solution? —valereee (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Of course, and I agree with you both (I saw C&C's recent RM a few days back), this is indeed an issue. I just mean that I don't feel consensus will agree to have the primary title as such an unusual one, by standardising 'homicide', note we only have 9 such articles currently. If 'killing' is a pipe dream, I feel like homicide would be worse. Btw RfC should probably make clear that any outcome won't apply where a specific event has had significant media coverage and been given a particular COMMONNAME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, hm, that's an interesting point. At what point is an event so big that it would overrule this? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Death of Adolf Hilter. See ngram. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure. C&C's is a really good example. I don't think the line could be codified and it'd probably be down to local consensus to have a hearty debate on it, I guess. I don't think it'd be a big issue, though, the majority of killing articles in that category aren't that popular so I don't think they have a particular common name, and I doubt anyone would care enough to try mass-make the argument.
On the note of common term again, Google Trends, Ngrams. It's kinda telling, honestly. I think even I'd oppose homicide on the basis of it being too obscure of a term. I know these results aren't limited to killings/deaths, but shows general term prevalence + to nail the point: when was the last time RS said "Jane Doe was homicided", or you Googled for someone's homicide, rather than their death or killing? It'd constantly create friction for recent events and the Google banner predictions thing on search when they occasionally decide to diverge from the Wiki title (eg what happened to Kenosha riot when we were busy playing RM ping-pong, it looked totally silly, though I think this case was maybe a cache error). By the way, slight error in my Quarry above, I forgot to filter out redirects. Updated quarry - situation is more dire than I thought - we have just one non-redirect article with "Homicide of". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
lol on was homicided :D —valereee (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I made myself chuckle more than a few times yesterday. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there any real evidence that there are significant differences between Wikipedia article titles depending on whether a person who died in an incident was Black or not? When I asked for such evidence at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn (11 days ago), I received no reply. If anything, what I seem to notice is outraged people requesting that articles about recent incidents in which black people died should use "Killing of", but otherwise no clear difference. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Intersectionality. Segregation by any other name is still segregation. While the outward facing rationale maybe that it is because these are shootings, we know that the real reason has nothing to do with the manner of death. The real reason is, most certainly, because they were shot by a police officer. Police officers in fact shoot and kill more black people that white people. The killing is also more likely to be notable. Whatever the reasoning, articles about the killing of a black person is more likely not to be titled as such.
Even if it is not a race-based bias, it is a pro-police bias. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure of that either, and "Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer. If there is a statistical difference depending on whether police were involved or not, that may be just an ease-of-finding bias. A while ago I learned during some RM discussion that there was a convention of ordinarily using "Shooting of" for articles about shootings, and IIRC, there was a reference to looking in categories to find such articles. To check the convention and look for other outliers, I looked in places like Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, etc. Articles outside of those categories are harder to find. I don't think I'm the only person who has used categories to identify and reinforce naming consistency, and I don't think I'm biased in favor of police. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
No, no, no. You misunderstand me. I am NOT saying you are biased. You are just following the consistency already established. The problem is the naming system is biased. The consistency was developed piece by piece without considering the outcome. How the subject is treated as a whole.
Re: ""Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer" ... but it does in fact if not in principle. Look through the articles in Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state, the majority of the "Shooting of ..." articles are about a police killing of a black man. Almost all are about a police officer killing a person. I am not saying it is racism. I am saying it is an inherent bias. It may not be intentional, but the end result is a POV favoring the police. An over-cautiousness, to the point of not even acknowledging the person was killed. A self-censorship to the point that even the mere possibility of implying guilt (which I do not think is really implied in killing of) leads us to choose a euphemistic title for the articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me try to explain this another way, consider why Killing of Harambe has never been nominated to be moved to "Shooting of ..."
Or why do we not have a problem with Killing of Cecil the lion. The lion's killing was legal and sanctioned. Yes, he was shot with an arrow. But if "Killing of ..." implied criminal intent, then why is this article not named Death of Cecil the lion. Are we saying the dictionary meaning of the word changes when the deceased is a human? There is no mention of human in the dictionaries mentioned in our discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure, but I'll offer some possibilities. I think it is more clear that someone deliberately set out to kill Harambe and Cecil – even the perpetrators would agree that those were clearly planned actions with a deliberate intent to kill. (I don't think anyone has said that "Killing of" implies criminal intent – just that it implies deliberate intent and thus seems inappropriate as a generally applied naming convention.) Also, there are major legal (and for most people, moral) repercussions for deliberate killings of people but not of apes and lions under the given circumstances, so we should be much more careful about describing the death of a person as a "killing" than the death of a non-human. What may seem like a euphemism to one person may be a restraint against expressing opinionated POV conclusions – if many of the "killers" were police, that is not necessarily pro-police bias – just anti-POV restraint. Also, there are so few articles about the violent deaths of individual animals that no one is really watching them for establishing a clear naming convention about them. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The zoologist did not wake up that day intent on killing Harambe. They did it because there was a reasonable fear that he would harm the child. Assuming the best motives for police in these instances, the police did not wake up that day intent on killing a black man that day. They presummably did it because of a reasonable fear that he would harm another person or them. However, when police shoot, they shoot to kill. This is established in practice, training, and policy. The concept of shoot to wound has generally been rejected by every police department in the United States.
Every time a police officer discharges their weapon, they do it with an intent to kill. Whether that intent is criminal or not is not our concern. Whether it is a justifiable killing or an unjustifiable killing is not our concern. In either case, it is a killing. An act done deliberately with the intent to cause the death of another being, whether for good cause or bad, is a killing. When a person shoots another in the torso multiple times, they intend to kill that person, plain and simple. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Evidence of significant differences you ask? Well, see my Quarry data above. We have an equal number of killing of and shooting of articles on the wiki. It's about a 2:1 non-redirect ratio for shooting of / killing of, but the majority of our shooting of articles seem to be black people in the US. So, I'd go out on a limb and say either most of our shooting/killing articles are of black people, or black people are disproportionately titled w shooting ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ping Levivich for comment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think "homicide" is too technical to make a good article title. Like "Cardiac arrest of John Doe" or "Involuntary manslaughter of John Doe" (poor John). If we're writing for like a teenage reading level, I doubt the implications of "homicide" will be grasped by the average reader. There is that problem that in British English, "killing" apparently implies intentional killing, but you know they're only like less than 10% of all English speakers in the world, I think they should just update their dictionaries :-P Lev!vich 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: the idea that "killing" apparently implies "intentional killing", I think, is a red herring for two reasons:
  • Events such as earthquakes are often described as "killing X people"
  • Even when talking about a human killing another, it only means the killing was intentional and not accidental. It does not mean with criminal intent because we have the words murder and manslaughter to describe knowingly killing a person with criminal intent (i.e. with the intent to commit a crime). This is why the phrases "justifiable killing" and "unjustifiable killing" make sense at all and have wide use on Google Ngrams. If killing inherently implied criminality, then "justifiable killing" would be an oxymoron.
Killing at most only includes the intention to kill and NOT the intention to commit a crime, or that the act was criminal. This is why self-defense can be described as a "justifiable killing".[7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, quite the aspersion to imply the great Cambridge Dictionary could be wrong. Please strike. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ping @BarrelProof and Roman Spinner:. Which do you object to more "Homicide of ... " or "Killing of ..."? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If editors got the inkling that 'homicide' was being used as a stepping stone to 'killing of' they'd oppose flatly on creep grounds, without engaging in a discussion on the merits of the proposal. 'Killing of' is more natural, and with it being more commonly used it marries better with existing naming policy. Zindor (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Zindor, I don't see it as a stepping stone. I see it as an acknowledgement that consensus does change, and this is a moment, in the US at least, where that is probably happening but may not quite be there yet. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You know, one thing we could do is set it up as
Death of
Killing of or Homicide of (please indicate your preference and provide rationale)
Murder of
That is, we don't necessarily have to decide on Killing of vs. Homicide of. We can ask for consensus on one vs. the other. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that may be a good solution, valereee. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable way to lay it out. Lev!vich 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
My gut reaction is to think that "Homicide" is a bit too far from ordinary plain language. And that some readers would conflate 'homicide' with 'murder'. I recall proposing the word "homicide" at least once in an RM – at Talk:2011 Waltham murders. That suggestion did not prevail – instead the agreed name became 2011 Waltham triple murder (which seems fine to me). In that discussion, one editor (Joseph A. Spadaro) said "To use the term 'homicide' implies that it is a non-murder (homicidal) death. If anything, that term would be POV." I don't agree, but that's what was said. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

related question[edit]

That maybe also needs an RfC: If the article is about how a human being died, is the death the most important thing about the story, and if it is, does that mean a shooting death should be treated as a death, not as a shooting, for purposes of choosing a title? —valereee (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As time goes on, I more and more am coming to the opinion that we should just name the articles "John Doe" and not "Death of John Doe" or "Killing of John Doe", etc. Even if the only thing notable about a person is how they died, we should make the article about the person and not just about their death. I think that's more respectful to the subject. I think it's easier for the reader as well: a person looking for information about George Floyd's death will search for "George Floyd", not "death of George Floyd", "killing of George Floyd", or "homicide of George Floyd. Similarly, someone looking for information about Kurt Cobain's death will type in "Kurt Cobain suicide", not "suicide of Kurt Cobain". And, naming the articles after the subject instead of "Death of..." will make it easier on editors, who won't have to figure out these tricky issues about "Death of"/"Killing of"/"Suicide of". We would still have "Death of ..." articles as spinouts, e.g. Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson, but in those cases it's almost a certainty that there would be a common name to name the spin-out (because of the large amount of coverage of the subject). But for victims of police shootings, for example, I'm starting to think we should just create articles about the victims instead of articles about their deaths. Separating out the notability of a person from the notability of their death increasingly strikes me as a splitting of hairs that leads to great complication and ultimately a less-than-optimal result. Lev!vich 17:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, I could get behind that. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is the Emmett Till model. I do not think the AFD-hawks would agree to that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It's OK, I'm fluent in deletionist. But what do you think about it C&C? Is it better to just name the articles after the people and skip the whole "Death of..." debate? I.e., it would just be Greg Gunn, Rayshard Brooks, etc. Lev!vich 01:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, I am not excited by the prospect of COATRACK-like articles that would result. While we may be avoiding the NPOV debate over the title, we will end up creating articles that unduly focus on the death. Upwards of 80+ percent of these articles would focus on the death, which is not a balanced presentation of a person's biography. I would have immediately failed the GA for Emmett Till if I would have been the reviewer. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Meh, I don't think it's a problem that biographies of people focus on the part of the subject's life that the subject is notable for, even if it is their death. Most books about Emmett Till do focus on his death, after all, it would be natural for his Wikipedia biography to similarly focus on his death. In the same vein, biographies of Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth focus on their crimes, and books about Abraham Lincoln are mostly about his presidency not his law practice. If a WP article is a summary of secondary sources, and 80% of the secondary sources are about the person's death, it naturally follows that 80% of a WP article would be about the person's death. Does this change your mind? Lev!vich 02:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, such is life. It certainly convinces me enough not to oppose. However, the less drastic solution, but in a similar vain, would be to name all such articles "Death of ...", without discriminating between murder, manslaughter, fatal shooting, suicide or accident. At least that would have less detrimental effect to WP:N. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I kind of think that would be better than the inconsistent status quo. Just call a "death" article "death of..." and be done with it. Yet I know there are a number of editors who object to that on WP:N grounds for certain articles. So I'm not sure which solution to this problem will gain consensus (if any). And perhaps a smorgasbord RFC is what's needed. Lev!vich 02:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
"Death of" for all human deaths would work for me. The first sentence then could be argued over, but that would be better than having the titles be inconsistent and potentially biased. I'd just like us to have some consistency. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'd also like us to have consistency; that's really more important to me than any particular outcome, and I get the feeling that's how pretty much everyone feels.
Maybe one approach is to do one of those RFC formats where an editor can make a statement and other editors agree/disagree with the statement. The proposed statements could be things like: "By default, articles about deaths should be titled 'Death of...'"; "By default, all articles about fatal shooting deaths should be titled 'Killing of...'"; "By default, all articles about shootings should be titled 'Shooting of...' regardless of whether the shooting was fatal or not", etc. Lev!vich 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, after the discussions I've seen, I think it's likely something that restrictively formatted with rationale in each case is necessary. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Solomon Areda Waktolla on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Toots | RD[edit]

Heya, Coffeeandcrumbs. See that we are both working towards getting Toots' page where it needs to be for RD. Love all the research and additional references you are adding. I am good at the prose and weaving the story, which his page needs. Any way I could persuade you to add in referenced facts and data for the 1980's and 1990's then I can take a pass at it? Frankly, when I went to Toots' page this morning to add it to the RD list, I was shocked at how much work it needed. Glad it is getting the love it needs now. 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation[edit]

Wiki medal.jpg The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Picture barnstar[edit]

Valued Picture Barnstar Hires.png Valued Picture Barnstar
For finding and uploading a picture of Castillo Armas without copyright issues. Thinker78 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Very nice work on Elizabeth Willing Powel. A fine article that's come a long way. Ergo Sum 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, thank you! I learned so much in the process. I now have so much more appreciation for what you do. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Black Is King on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Nice to see your name in blue! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but it wont last long. I am only using it in protest until a particularly irksome bias is resolved. I will be back in red as soon as that happens. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
let's not hold our breath :) —valereee (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

reintroducing the challenged ... content[edit]

Indeed. Just noting the lack of need for FP and the real need to reduce protection level so improvements good be made.` --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, all is well that ends well. Thanks! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's a jaw dropper[edit]

Shooting of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams didn't happen to mention the people DIED until, many paragraphs in, mentioning the convictions of involuntary manslaughter. Seriously? —valereee (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, yep. Just shot 137 times. Only 1 instance of "dead" and one instance of "killing" in the prose, but 9 instances of "dead" and 3 instances of "fatal" in the titles of citations. That does not even consider the instances of these words in the prose of the sources. Bending over backwards to not acknowledge "death" or "killing". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't believe it. I was like...so did BOTH of them die, or just the one? I had to read the entire article to figure that out. Just bizarre. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, this is not funny ... but I can't help but crack up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm with you. You have to laugh or you have to cry. —valereee (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
One of my father's favorite sayings was: "You can laugh or you can cry: it's your choice." Lev!vich 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What if we asked ...[edit]

Articles for contextual reference
  1. Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
  2. Killing of Aisha al-Rabi
  3. Killing of Alexander Levlovich
  4. Killing of Alights on the Cloud
  5. Killing of Alisa Flatow
  6. Killing of Andres Guardado
  7. Killing of Andrew Harper
  8. Killing of Asel Asleh
  9. Killing of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon
  10. Killing of Balachandran Prabhakaran
  11. Killing of Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal
  12. Killing of Cannon Hinnant
  13. Killing of Carnell Russ
  14. Killing of Cecil the lion
  15. Killing of Charles Dean and Neil Sharman
  16. Killing of Charles Flynn
  17. Killing of Charlie Howard
  18. Killing of Claudia Gómez González
  19. Killing of Cédric Chouviat
  20. Killing of Damilola Taylor
  21. Killing of Daniel Prude
  22. Killing of David Morley
  23. Killing of David Wilkie
  24. Killing of Emily Jones
  25. Killing of Eric Garner
  26. Killing of Esther Ohana
  27. Killing of George Floyd
  28. Killing of George Robinson
  29. Killing of Guin Richie Phillips
  30. Killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamon
  31. Killing of Harambe
  32. Killing of Hayat Baloch
  33. Killing of Heidi Hazell
  34. Killing of Henryk Siwiak
  35. Killing of Ilan Halimi
  36. Killing of Ingrid Escamilla
  37. Killing of Javier Ambler
  38. Killing of Jennifer Laude
  39. Killing of Jonathan Zito
  40. Killing of Julian Edward Roosevelt Lewis
  41. Killing of Julie Ward
  42. Killing of Katie Rough
  43. Killing of Kevin McDaid
  44. Killing of Khalid Jabara
  45. Killing of Lasa and Zabala
  46. Killing of Latasha Harlins
  47. Killing of Lizzie O'Neill
  48. Killing of Manuel Ellis
  49. Killing of Maria Colwell
  50. Killing of Mollie Tibbetts
  51. Killing of Moshe Barsky
  52. Killing of Muhammad al-Na'im
  53. Killing of Musa Khankhel
  54. Killing of Nabra Hassanen
  55. Killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud
  56. Killing of Nicole van den Hurk
  57. Killing of Osama bin Laden
  58. Killing of Palmira Silva
  59. Killing of Pamela Turner
  60. Killing of Patrick Kelly
  61. Killing of Peter Fechter
  62. Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai
  63. Killing of Raju Risaldar
  64. Killing of Ravindra Mhatre
  65. Killing of Raymond Yellow Thunder
  66. Killing of Rayshard Brooks
  67. Killing of Rekiah O'Donnell
  68. Killing of Robert Hamill
  69. Killing of Ronil Singh
  70. Killing of Ronnie Paris
  71. Killing of Sa'ad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash
  72. Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni
  73. Killing of Sohane Benziane
  74. Killing of Stephen Carroll
  75. Killing of Susanna Feldmann
  76. Killing of Suzanne Hopper
  77. Killing of Tahir Naseem
  78. Killing of Tessa Majors
  79. Killing of Tim McLean
  80. Killing of Türkan Feyzullah
  81. Killing of Vanessa Guillén
  82. Killing of Wahidur Rahman
  83. Killing of William Jefferson
  84. Killing of Yacoub Abu Al-Qia'an
  85. Killing of Zohra Shah
  1. List of killings by law enforcement officers by country
  2. List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada
  3. List of killings by law enforcement officers in China
  4. List of killings by law enforcement officers in Germany
  5. List of killings by law enforcement officers in Poland
  6. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom
  7. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States prior to 2009
  8. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2009
  9. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2011
  10. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2010
  11. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2012
  12. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2013
  13. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2014
  14. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2015
  15. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2016
  16. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2017
  17. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2018
  18. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2019
  19. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2020
  20. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2010
  21. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2012
  22. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2013
  23. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2014
  24. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2015
  25. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2016
  26. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2017
  27. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2018
  28. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2019
  29. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2020
  30. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2010
  31. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2012
  32. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2013
  33. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2014
  34. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2015
  35. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2016
  36. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2017
  37. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2018
  38. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2019
  39. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2010
  40. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2012
  41. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2013
  42. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2014
  43. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2015
  44. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2016
  45. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2017
  46. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2018
  47. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2019
  48. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2020
  49. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2010
  50. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2012
  51. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2013
  52. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2014
  53. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2015
  54. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2016
  55. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2017
  56. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2018
  57. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2019
  58. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2020
  59. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2010
  60. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2012
  61. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2013
  62. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2014
  63. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2015
  64. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2016
  65. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2017
  66. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2018
  67. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2019
  68. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2020
  69. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2010
  70. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2012
  71. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2013
  72. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2014
  73. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2015
  74. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2016
  75. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2017
  76. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2018
  77. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2019
  78. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2020
  79. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2010
  80. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2012
  81. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013
  82. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2014
  83. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2015
  84. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2016
  85. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2017
  86. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2018
  87. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2019
  88. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2020
  89. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2010
  90. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2012
  91. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2013
  92. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2014
  93. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2015
  94. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2016
  95. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2017
  96. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2018
  97. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2019
  98. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2020
  99. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2010
  100. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2012
  101. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2013
  102. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2014
  103. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2015
  104. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2016
  105. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2017
  106. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2018
  107. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2019
  108. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2010
  109. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2012
  110. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2013
  111. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2014
  112. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2015
  113. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2016
  114. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2017
  115. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2018
  116. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2019
  117. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2010
  118. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2012
  119. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2013
  120. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2014
  121. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2015
  122. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2016
  123. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2017
  124. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2018
  125. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2019
  126. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2020
In the context of the titles linked in the collapsed section above, do the words killing and killings imply wrongdoing and / or criminality?
  • Option 1: Yes, both wrongdoing and criminality
  • Option 2: Wrongdoing but not criminality
  • Option 3: Neither
  • Option 4: It depends on if it is killings or killing

@Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, BarrelProof, and Levivich: I think the above question gets at the heart of the disagreement. If we can get an answer to the above, then the rest is either moot or easy to resolve. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem more likely for that question to end up with option 1/2? You'd need a result of 3 for it to help with the naming issue, which seems unlikely. imv, I think your RM-in-batches idea was perhaps the most likely to succeed yet. Bunch them up based on their similarities, choose the most uncontroversial naming changes, get that to pass, and then see what we're left with. RMs being 7 days, it's also a lot more we can get done rather than the 30 day RfC. Once titles are sufficiently changed, imv it'd take a long time for it to spiral out of control again, and in general it'd create an implicit consensus behind the new naming system anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, re: "Doesn't it seem more likely for that question to end up with option 1/2?" ... then we will just have to accept that. We would then just start an RM for all "Killing of ... " articles and all fatal shooting articles titled with the prefix "Shooting of ..." to be changed to "Death of ... ". That also resolves the situation if not to our satisfaction. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
And all "List of killings by law enforcement officers ..." to "List of deaths related to law enforcement officers". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to put the meaning of words up to a !vote. It really doesn't matter how the self-selecting group of Wikipedia editors who are going to respond to this RFC (or any RFC) define words. That's such a tiny minority of people (and a skewed, not-at-all-representative-of-our-readers sample) that I'd have no faith that whatever the answer came back as would match up with what our readers (two billion English-speaking people around the world) think. I know we're spitballing ideas here, but I think some of the other ones are more likely to succeed. I agree with your (C&C) point elsewhere that focusing on the definition of "killing" is a bit of a red herring. Lev!vich 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, let the record show, I have considered all alternative options in good faith. IMO, the only thing that will adequately answer this question is a mass RM of 90+ articles. At least that will show that CONSISTENCY is a circular argument. Anything else besides a mass RM will descend into minutiae or a consensus split. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone could possibly claim you haven't been thoroughly exploring all conceivable options to skin this cat. Your efforts to push this boulder up this hill are greatly appreciated (as are everyone else's).
W/r/t a mass RM, what's the plan for if this happens:
  1. Voter A makes a common name argument for article #8
  2. Voter B makes a common name argument for article #24
  3. Voter C makes a common name argument for article #63
  4. Voter D procedurally opposes because these articles shouldn't be bundled, as evidenced by the arguments made by Voters A, B, and C
  5. Voter E procedurally opposes per Voter D, etc. etc.
I fear that's how a mass RM will break up and fail.
Another alternative is to propose a policy change (a "default" position), and then boldly moving the 90+ articles per the new policy change (assuming its approved), and then anyone who wants to make a common name-based proposal to move any of those articles to a title other than the "default" can open an RM for that particular article.
I fear if it's a mass RM for a "default" position, even with caveats and "no prejudice to a subsequent RM based on common name for any bundled title" disclaimers, that'll get lost on !voters. I think a lot of !voters will see 90+ titles bundled in an RM, see some common name arguments and a procedural oppose based on the bundling, and just pile on with procedural opposes based on the bundling without thinking too much about caveats and disclaimers. A policy page proposal would avoid that and would allow for a bold move... and have the added bonus of giving explicit guidance for the titles of future article creations.
Granted, the policy page could also be updated after the mass RM. It's a "top-down" or "bottom-up" question, I guess. All that said, I'm not opposed to a mass RM of course. Lev!vich 16:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Not the right options: Calling something "a killing" [using 'killing' as a noun] tends to imply that someone deliberated and then set out on a pre-planned course of action that successfully resulted in the death of someone. It does not imply that their decision or course of action was wrong or criminal, only intentional. So all of the presented "options" are not relevant to the key issue. For example, the Killing of Osama bin Laden was clearly a killing, but that does not mean it was a criminal or wrong-headed mission. As another example, accidentally killing [verb] a bystander or a hostage when trying to shoot a perpetrator is not a killing of [noun] the bystander / hostage. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
BarrelProof, that argument may work for Shooting of Breonna Taylor. How do you explain your opposition to Killing of Greg Gunn. Are you saying that Smith shot Gunn seven times accidentally? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Smith did not sit at his desk and draft a plan for how he was going to track down Gunn and corner him in an alley where he could calmly approach and mow him down. Rather, he suddenly found himself in a situation in which he lost control over what was going on. He tried to get back the control using a taser, and it didn't work. He tried using his baton, and that also didn't succeed. In the midst of this confusing tussle, he drew his weapon and started shooting. I would not have objected to "Manslaughter of Greg Gunn", since that was the conclusion reached by the legal system. (This is drifting off the topic that I responded to. I feel like I'm just being repeatedly challenged for the sake of wearing me down. That might succeed, frankly.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
BarrelProof, I am so sorry! I do not mean to wear you down. But you are the only devil's advocate (for lack of a better) that I have. You have helped me immensely!
In fact, your latest argument has convinced me to curate the mass RM list more closely. I have decided to exclude Breonna Taylor and similar cases.
You deserve a break from this. I will not ping you any more. You can find discussion well enough on your own. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll also offer that what we are talking about, mostly, is what to use as Wikipedia article titles by default, not in particular specific cases. Careful study on a case-by-case basis to consider each particular situation is also desirable, but we're talking about whether shooting deaths should be generally be called killings. I think I tend to be more conservative about potentially expressing POV judgments than most. I would personally tend to prefer "Death of" for many article titles, but that doesn't seem to satisfy many other Wikipedia editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I was definitely in the opposition camp of "Death of ..." in the past. However, this whole thing has convinced me that it maybe our only hope. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I would go for 'death of' for anything that hasn't been declared a murder by a court ruling. The issue that's most important for me is that we have consistency for people who are of color, especially when police are involved. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, fwiw, BarrelProof: I don't want you to be worn down, and I'm sorry it feels that way. I believe you are a well-intentioned editor who disagrees with me/with whom I disagree on many issues, I respect your viewpoint, and I hope you'll continue to offer your input. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
"If we cannot freely and openly discuss a subject without fear, how can we expect to cover the world without bias and without censorship." Well said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Liz[edit]

Good job on the article. Sorry I couldn't help out more than I did. But wow, is the article so much better now than it was when we started. GMGtalk 11:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, that is sweet but when is the book coming? Face-smile.svg   --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ITN recognition for Robert W. Gore[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 22 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert W. Gore, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 03:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Four Award[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Elizabeth Willing Powel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hook[edit]

I'm thinking about putting Killing of Alton Manning up for DYK. Wondering if you've any ideas for a good hook? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I am thinking ... that an inquest alleged that the killing of Alton Manning was unlawful and a judicial review found that the decision to not bring charges was flawed, but no charges have been brought forward? That is 193 characters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, tweaked the above again. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds good to me. I personally would use 'found' rather than 'alleged', since it was a legal finding of unlawful killing by a jury (UK doesn't necessarily require individuals to be charged in that killing for a finding of unlawful killing). An allege part would be that the individual prison officers are guilty of manslaughter, but that's not being said here really. I can submit the nomination at some point, need to brush up on DYK procedure a bit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Nominated, thanks again! Sidenote, gotta say DYK is a confusing place (even though it's not even my first nom). So much procedural stuff, rules, sections, subpages (which apply to me, which don't?), etc. There's just too much going on, from the perspective of someone not very involved in the process. Better organisation of the pages and some trimming could maybe help, but it feels slightly overwhelming currently. If I feel this, maybe a new, casual editor who just wrote their first article does too, and if so they might just abandon their attempt before submitting it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, great job. I made some minor edits. I will leave the review to someone else so we can have the most number of people having reviewed the article before its posting. By the time it eventually comes to ERRORS, you will have me, the reviewer, the promoter, and the admin who loaded the queue to call-on as witnesses.
I know DYK is a bit much, but after a few more noms you will find it to be easy. The regulars are actually very helpful and would have assisted in correcting any errors. It does have a big learning curve, but that may be unavoidable since the arduous process was created to ensure that, by the time it reaches the Main Page, it has been reviewed by several people.
BTW, if asked for a QPQ, tell them how many previous nominations you have had in the past. People with less than 5 previous nominations are not required to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Among the Sierra Nevada, California[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 24 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Among the Sierra Nevada, California, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Albert Bierstadt's landscape painting Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains (pictured) was removed from its frame and glued to an interior wall when Locusts on Hudson was rebuilt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Among the Sierra Nevada, California. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Among the Sierra Nevada, California), 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.

—valereee (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your creation of Among the Sierra Nevada, California! I saw it in person just the other day; it's a fantastic painting that definitely deserves a page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Among the Sierra Nevada, California[edit]

Sdkb, How the fuck did you get to see it? I thought museums were closed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, a few more Smithsonians just reopened the other day! It was very empty; I don't think many people have found out yet. Timed passes are required for now. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The display around that painting is quite interesting; it's got its own alcove with a soft circular bench. It might be nice to have a picture of the setup for the article if it expands. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I got a camera and I live less than 10 blocks away. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I read in one of the sources that you can actually see fish swimming in the water. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lawrence Hogan 2[edit]

Lawrence Joseph Hogan (restoration).jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Lawrence Joseph Hogan (restoration).jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 13:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ginsburg[edit]

I saw that you explained in your edit summary why you added the maintenance tag after I had already removed it. I would prefer not to leave maintenance tags there if possible given the high number of views and GA status. I hope that doesn't mess up your plans. I am happy to see that you would like to make further improvements. Knope7 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Knope7, no problem. I assume you have no serious disagreement with the expansion, in the past or future. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo[edit]

Your edit summary is spot on. However, "journalist" was the established term which was being repeatedly replaced. Doesn't WP:BRD support leaving it as it was, not removing it altogether? Dorsetonian (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

For the 'D' part, there is discussion ongoing at User talk:Vautrinjr. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Dorsetonian, I should have linked to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
That concerns material about living persons [that] has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. The trolls who were replacing the established term "journalist" (which is widely used in the refs) with the abusive term "propagandist" were not making a good-faith BLP objection; indeed, they were doing just the opposite. The subject of the article appears to be controversial and his page (which had just come out of protection, but is now protected again) was being repeatedly vandalised, pure and simple. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not a troll and I agree with them only on the fact that "journalist" is not NPOV description of the person. I did not add "propagandist". If I did show me where? I add "provocateur" (which already included in the body) while leaving in "journalist". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

C&C, please note the article is subject to a 1RR limit. Adding provocateur to the lead after removing journalist and others were trying to add propaganist [[8]] is a violation of 1RR. Additionally, such a negative LABEL would require strong sourcing which we don't have at this time. Please self revert and take this to the talk page. Springee (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, no it is not a 1RR. progandist is different than provocateur. 1RR only applies to revert to my preferred version. I did not do that. Journalist is still there. I have not reverted a single edit. I do not know why you two are even here. Go and ping me from Talk:Andy Ngo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
You are editing the same sentence that has been subject to many back and forths. We are here because I see this as a 1RR violation rather than a simple content dispute. As it's an editor behavior question I figured I would raise it here rather than on the talk page. Tedder as the admin who recently locked the page, do you think CC's second edit to the same disputed sentence in the last 24hr is a 1RR? This is independent of questions of BLP etc. Springee (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
You restored "journalist" in spite of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. That is a violation. I have not reverted a single edit. An edit is not a reversion unless it restores a previous version without a significant change. Every edit I made was significantly different --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Journalist was a long time standing description and one supported by many RSs as well as talk page discussions. Additionally I wouldn't have violated 1RR even if I added that he was an astronaut since it was my only edit. Removing "journalist" this first time was a revert. Editing the same disputed sentence to add a word that is very similar to propagandist (provocateur vs propagandist) is also in effect a revert. It certainly is RECKLESS. Beyond that, you added a controversial LABEL to the opening sentence in wikivoice. That is just plain bad editing. Springee (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
By this logic, any editing is a reversion. I have responded to your comment on the talk page. Please discuss there. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Journalist is long standing and has been clearly discussed in the talk pages. If you don't self revert I will take this to ARE as this is clearly a 1RR violation. To be clear, you removed it here [[9]] and here [[10]] so this is a clear case of 1RR violation and you should be well aware of it based on this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I do not respond to threats. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice - ARE discussion related to Andy Ngo article[edit]

[[11]] Springee (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Of course it's indiscriminate. Had I picked out some contributors to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ignored others then the addition of the notice would imply some judgement on your edits. The notice is explicitly non-judgemental. Every contributor to the page will be getting it, though it may take me a while. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, I am sorry. I am a bit tense right now because of something unrelated above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Global Certification Commission[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 6 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Global Certification Commission, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Global Certification Commission has certified the eradication of wild poliovirus in five of the six WHO regions, with the exception of the Eastern Mediterranean Region? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Global Certification Commission. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Global Certification Commission), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Harvey J. Alter, Michael Houghton (virologist), and Charles M. Rice[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harvey J. Alter, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Ambox current red.svgOn 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michael Houghton (virologist), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Ambox current red.svgOn 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charles M. Rice, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 19:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected images[edit]

Hi, hope you're well. After your excellent work in scaling main page images consistently, could you look at applying the same scaling to the protected queue at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection? This would give a better idea of how the images will look on the MP, especially for non-portraits. It currently just displays as 100x100. Thanks in advance, Stephen 02:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen, something like this seems like too much work for admins. But, if you think it is worth it, that is one implementation that works. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Baishe Niangniang on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest[edit]

October
Apples, Mainz-Finthen.jpg
harvest

Thank you so much for work on articles and ITN that I see above! - Main page history has again been missing, - could you help, please? (see my talk, first red link, and at least to 16 before.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Gerda. I started discussion here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thank you, beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events[edit]

Hello. I wanted to invite you to the Current Event WikiProject for the edits you have done on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and other articles in the WikiProject's scope. Most editors aren't aware that the project became active again in April 2020. Just wanted to invite you and hope you consider joining. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Hi, Coffeeandcrumbs! Just to inform you that there is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Luis Arce on whether the article can be improved adding the hypocorism "Lucho" to the lead (and if affirmative, how it should be included). Because I read somewhere that pinging someone with a "red" userpage does not always work. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Friendly note[edit]

Hello C&C, I thought with your interest in Patrick Healy, you might also bee interested in his predecessor, John Early, whose FAC has sadly gotten little attention. If you have a spare moment and care to leave some comments, that'd be appreciated as always. If your attention is preoccupied elsewhere, I understand completely. Ergo Sum 05:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging