User talk:Michael Reed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hey there - it's mmcc. I noticed your edits on OpenBSD.

Anyway, I've been wiki-ing for years (this is a new-ish account), so let me know if you want to work together to write or clean up an article. Risc64 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thanks for the welcome. Yeah sure, I'd love to work together, how would you recommend collaborating? I think I still have your email address from your replies on tech@, but email is slow, so some other platform might be preferable. IIRC you're a Pidgin developer, so maybe some XMPP service would do? Michael Reed (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, hope you don't mind me butting in. I nominated the article for FAR and am willing to stay in the loop if you two wish. I think the article could be improved a lot and possibly resubmitted to FAC if it's delisted but subsequently improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I don't mind at all. No comment on the FAC thing, as I'm not aware of the implications of that (I'm quite new), but I'm all for improving the page. Anyway, one thing which came to mind recently in terms of improving the article is that we don't talk about packages/ports much. I glanced at Arch Linux and quite like what's going on there; what do you all think? Michael Reed (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think adding packages and ports would be good. You could say that OpenBSD tends to emphasize packages whereas others like FreeBSD emphasize ports, and then list some of the major packages. As far as derivatives, there are probably not enough OpenBSD ones to justify that section. We could just mention that OpenSSH is used in most servers and other programs like pf are used in other OSes as well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just deleted the derivatives section; I'll get around to your other ideas in a few days, assuming you and/or User:Risc64 don't implement them first. Michael Reed (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good too. I mentioned in the review page that some of the references in the article are inconsistent. I believe you added some sources to the end of the 1st paragraph of the lead, which were good links but weren't consistent with most of the rest of the article. Probably 10 years ago when the article was originally featured, they put all of the sources at the end of the article as named references. You might see that when you edit the page. Hope that makes sense - that will make the references more consistent and also more complete, since they'll have names, dates, etc. and not just URLs. Keep up the good work! Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

After reading some of wp:Citing sources, I converted the refs in the article lead to named references. If/when you have the time, would you mind taking a look? Thanks for the advice so far. Michael Reed (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The named references look good. I went ahead and moved them to the main body of the article where they are mentioned. Typically, references are only included in the lead when there is something mentioned there that isn't in the body. The article does look like it's improving quickly, so thanks for taking the time to read up on Wikipedia policies and implement these changes. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, your advice is much appreciated :D

Now, on to more editing... Michael Reed (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

format=PDF

I think the citation templates treat anything with a URL ending with ".pdf" as being a PDF, without the need for "format=PDF". Guy Harris (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: Indeed, I just figured that out, but thanks for the pointer. Michael Reed (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Server protocols

After filling in the GeNUA citation, the only remaining citation needed tag in the OpenBSD article is at the end of the Server subsection, which says:

"OpenBSD features a full server suite and can be easily configured as a mail server, web server, FTP server, DNS server, router, firewall, NFS file server, or any combination of these. Software providing support for other server protocols are available as packages."

Do you know what other server protocols there are? That would help with finding a source. Once that's added, there won't be any citation needed tags, which definitely looks good. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

For one, the main list (FTP, DNS, NFS) is incomplete, see here. But we can get around to that later.

As for "other server protocols", off the top of my head I can think of IPP, IRC, and XMPP. Usually just searching XMPP, for example, on ports.su, should be enough to find a server for said protocol.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that last sentence should even be there; it seems what it states is obvious given that OpenBSD has package management tools. Michael Reed (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing, although it wouldn't look right to just have one sentence in that section. The article is now at FARC, and I noted that it will probably need to be rewritten to be FA-quality. These short sections will all be redone anyway, although your numerous fixes will help establish a foundation for the next version of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

With that said, I've removed the sentence in question; it doesn't look right, as you said, but I figure it's not needed. Also, I agree that it should probably be rewritten, which I aim to work on soon. I have some preliminary notes here, which will be expanded when I make the time to look at sources; you can help add more notes there, if you'd like. Do you have any tips on rewriting articles? Perhaps I should make a draft in my user space and move any notes/discussion to the draft's talk page, as to make it easier to find.Michael Reed (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. We basically just need to improve the current version as much as possible, then compare it with the older versions, such as the one right after being promoted to Featured Article 10 years ago, and synthesize the two in a new version. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GCC ref

Hi Michael, I noticed you reverted your own edit on the GCC note. You can leave this off since the second bullet point here already has that ref (#26) in addition to the note at the end. Essentially, what you were trying to do is nest a reference inside another reference, since a note is just another type of reference. That's why it broke, and it was redundant anyway.

I like how you're taking charge of the rewrite, and I'd be happy to help. I am working on a couple other Wikipedia-related items, but getting the OpenBSD article as good as it can be is something I'd like to help make happen. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Tony, as I didn't find the template error message very helpful.

I would much appreciate the help. My summer classes end shortly, at which point I'd like to put in some time on note-taking. I'd first like to read through Absolute OpenBSD (2nd edition) and make notes of that, then I'll probably have a better idea of what else needs to be read. This is perhaps a question I should be answering, not asking, but how would you like to help out? --Michael Reed (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm mostly thinking I'll just review what you write, although I also have the Absolute OpenBSD 2nd ed. book and ebook, and could check any references there as well. I plan on taking another article to FAC (featured article candidate) soon, so hopefully I'll learn even more about how to write articles that are featured-quality and can translate that into getting OpenBSD back to featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear, I look forward to your feedback. I'll let you know once I've got a draft, no ETA though ;) --Michael Reed (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OpenBSD

I have started working on a rewrite based on your improvements at the main article here. — Esquivalience (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I already like the look of the new lead. Do you plan on also using Absolute OpenBSD, 2nd ed. as a source? I've been (slowly) reading through it recently and it's mostly up to date, perhaps the most up to date book on OpenBSD. Michael Reed (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolute OpenBSD is in the "Works" list, and will probably be utilized quite a bit. It's a good secondary source, and that will help with the overuse of primary sources (such as openbsd.org) that was mentioned on the FARC page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Hi Michael, thanks for the Leo Frank edit – it seems like you're following me around! I plan on taking this article to peer review soon, so feel free to make any further improvements or offer any other suggestions if you have time. I noticed your intent to rewrite OpenBSD "eventually"... no rush there, I'm just happy to see that I got the ball rolling and your willingness to put in the effort! Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony, don't worry about me following you; I come in peace. Anyway, I'll be sure to take a look in the next few days at Leo Frank, as I only had time to look at the lead today. It looks to be in excellent shape, thanks in large part to you I imagine, so I doubt I'll find much.

As for OpenBSD, all I can promise is that I'll get a draft done by 2020 :) Michael Reed (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: I left a series of edits, mostly minor, on the first 3 sections Leo Frank. Let me know if I made any mistakes, or you think I'm being too pedantic, at which point I'll continue through the rest of the article. Michael Reed (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think they look good, and since I plan on going to FAC there will be a lot of "pedantic" edits sooner or later anyway. I was initially unsure about removing the wedding location since it was at the bride's house, which is interesting but admittedly probably not important enough for an encyclopedia article. So feel free to go through the rest of the article when you have time. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I should be able to work on it over the weekend; I'll ping you when I'm done.

Fair warning: it will effectively be just a copyedit, as I don't know nearly enough about Leo Frank to address much of the content side of the article. --Michael Reed (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked over your edits and they look good. I addressed the clarification tags, and made a couple extra edits. The only things I want to mention to you is you undid your own WL on Southern United States, which is probably unneeded anyway, but I thought it was odd. Also, I removed a dash you added and replaced it with a comma. I changed all en and em dashes in the article to the {{spaced en dash}} tag. That way, it's more apparent when you look under the hood whether it's a hyphen, en dash, or em dash. As I mentioned earlier, the article is at the point where most edits are nitpicks.

Of course, I don't expect you to have a background on the case, and it's probably a good thing you don't, since you had a few edits where you asked for clarification. If you knew a lot about the case, you might not have even thought to make these clarifications since you would have already known it. There are a few other editors who are well versed on the case and made significant content additions during the GA review. You are just the yin to their yang. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Southern United States WL: I thought it was a good idea initially, then realized later the WL wasn't even needed, so removed it. And thanks for dealing with the clarification tags.

Good point regarding my lack of case knowledge. I'm gonna read through the rest of the article now, so that ignorance should come in handy :) --Michael Reed (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw you got through the rest of the article and thanked the first clarify tag I worked, so thanks for that. The next two clarify tags were a little more tricky, since some of the wording was inconsistent with the sources. The article as it is now should be fine. I might try to get someone who knows about the case to check it over, and then I'll take it to FAC. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I'm not actually done—I got impatient and skipped a bunch of sections. I have about 1/3 or 2/5 of the article left to read, which I plan on doing tomorrow. Anyway, thanks for bearing with me and being so timely with feedback and in addressing the clarify tags. As I said earlier, the article looks to be in pretty good shape :) Michael Reed (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. Take your time and I'll keep working with you on polishing it up. It took me almost a month to completely copyedit the article, including references and sources, so you're going really quick and I appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I also removed "nuanced" as this was confusing in the paragraph. The author of the cited book used that word to describe Slaton's report, while the next few quotes in that paragraph actually come from Slaton's report. Thus, it wasn't clear where "nuanced" came from. I see you also fixed quotes within quotes, including the Henig title, so good catch on that. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I finally got around to your clarify tags. If you have other sections to go or any other comments, let me know. The OpenBSD rewrite looks good too, so it looks like we're going in the right direction and you won't be compelled to be so busy with Wikipedia stuff much longer. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, the clarifications seem good at first glance. I've been slowly working through the rest of the article offline and have a few sections to go. And your sympathy is appreciated—I'd rather not burn myself out this quickly after joining WP :-) Michael Reed (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I finished your most recent comments and made a few other changes. Let me know how it looks and if you find anything else. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good to hear. I'm going to sleep now, so I'll look at your changes tomorrow, as I'll have plenty of time to do so. I already finished copyediting the rest of the article on paper, so all I need to do is "upload" those changes to WP. Michael Reed (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps I should print out the article and read it that way too. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: I finished adding my changes to the main article. I'm gonna wait a few days before re-reading the whole article; it should help me collect my thoughts, and I'm a bit burnt out with editing anyways, at least for the time being.

And regarding printing out articles to review them: I found it to be extremely helpful during this review. The few sections I reviewed on my computer took much longer than those on paper, as computers are much more distracting. Also, paper+pencil is essentially a spartan WYSIWYG editor, which avoids the need for a Preview button. :) Michael Reed (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Take your time as it will help to read it fresh. My only comment on the Frank article is I removed the specific day for the Slaton marker, although it was just four days before the centennial of his commutation of Frank's sentence. However, the source doesn't make clear whether this was intentional, so I left it as just 2015.

I'll have to try printing it out at some point too. I recall typing another article to make an audio version of that article without using cut and paste, and caught about 10 mistakes in an article that had just passed FAC. So combing over it a few times sure helps. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I addressed your clarify tag by rewording the paragraph a bit. I noted that Marx was a prominent leader from 1895 to 1946. I also considered adding heeding the call to the end of that phrase to make it more clear that it was related to the previous sentence, although that might have been unencyclopedic or at the very least extraneous. Let me know if it still isn't clear, although IMO it should be clear that Marx is the one from Atlanta who is part of the group mentioned in the previous sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I reread it a few times and it's much clearer; good job on the new wording. However, I have a question regarding this edit: is the removal of the time source really needed? If both Time and Oney are reliable, I think it would be better to include both. Michael Reed (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

For Time, it required a subscription, so I looked for an alternate source and found it in Oney. We could include both, although Time would only be useful to those with a subscription. As there are around 250 references already, I generally try to avoid redundancy, although if you find it useful you could add it back in. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's okay; I don't mind it being excluded. As you say, we do have a lot of references. Also, now that this conversation has gone on so long, Wikipedia's talk system is getting mildly annoying :) Michael Reed (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the Wiki talk system; it's outdated and borrows too much from article formatting. In any case, I plan on going to FAC in the first week of August after getting back from a trip. That should give us some time to wrap up loose ends. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good; that should give me plenty of time for my re-review, which I have yet to start. Michael Reed (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: Just wanted to let you know I started my 2nd copyedit; it should be done in a few days. Michael Reed (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be around again at the beginning of August and can look it over. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: I've gone ahead and synced my sandbox changes to the article, though they only cover the first half of it. I'll complete the 2nd half of my review once the cleanup tags have been dealt with, as dealing with said tags in smaller chunks should be easier than doing the whole thing at once. And I should mention that there's no rush, of course. Michael Reed (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've started to go through it and will get to the rest of the tags over the next few days. Feel free to review any edits I've made so far and let me know if you have further comments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll do that. And please let me know if you're unsure why I tagged a passage (some cleanup templates, such as Template:Who, don't support the reason= parameter). Michael Reed (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to say that; some I didn't understand exactly why, or there was a reason why the article didn't mention a name or otherwise didn't address what was asked in the tag. I'll give a full list once I complete the article, but here are two to start:

• “Who” tag, Police investigation, 1st sentence: Specifying a name would be unnecessary detail (the same reason we don’t mention John Black as the police detective in the fifth paragraph).
• Clarify tag, Police investigation, end of 1st paragraph: If we say “on the same floor”, it might not be clear that the blood is on the ground, but could be anywhere on the second floor, such as on a table. We could say “on the floor of the second floor”, but this might be awkward wording. If you can find a better way to say this, please let me know. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first point: I agree, I'll remove the tag now. As for the second point: what about "on the ground of the second floor"? Michael Reed (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think "on the ground" is good. Here are the other points I had:

• Discovery, end of section: Explain “vague” tag
• Timeline, pp 3: “and others” is used in source, although I could try to find other sources that specify this.

That should be it, but let me know if you see anything else. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify:

• First point: To be clear, the tag only applies to the last sentence ("It also appeared to the police that the body had been moved by Lee"), not the whole paragraph. Anyway, I found it vague because I'm not told what exactly made it appear to the police that Lee moved the body. The sentence makes it seem as if there was some clue that the police observed that caused them to suspect Lee, so it's odd that said clue isn't mentioned.
• Second point: I think it would be best to find other sources. I think the wording is weaselly at the moment, and being more precise would probably fix that. Michael Reed (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I addressed everything above. For the last one, the source Dinnerstein uses for "and others" is a 1942 book that I would have to order to view, but Oney is a little more specific when he says that several experts called by defense attorney Reuben Arnold corroborated the claim that the murder would have taken at least thirty minutes. I clarified this in the text and added the Oney reference. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Also, for the importance tag, I think mentioning the fact that the decision was 142 pages long reinforces the fact that it was contentious and thoroughly deliberated. Along with the 4-2 right after it, the sentence becomes more meaningful. If you still disagree, feel free to let me know. The rest of the tags I've addressed.
• Finally, I saw you edited the LiNK article, so you're really following me around now! Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable to me, so I just removed the importance tag.
• Heh, I got bored and started reading your page, which mentions that article. I have so much damn free time!
• By the way, there's still a {{vague}} tag in the article (again, no rush). Michael Reed (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I addressed the vague tag here, so hopefully that's satisfactory. If it can be improved any more, feel free to respond or edit the page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good to me. I bet you already checked, but does the Dinnerstein citation support the new text? Anyway, now that you're back, I'll have the remaining copyediting done in a few days. Michael Reed (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dinnerstein does in fact support it. Here are some comments for your clarify tags:

• I rewrote the part near the first tag since blood isn't mentioned in the 403-416 page range cited. I'm also not sure if the "state's own witnesses" part is completely accurate or meaningful, so I changed it.
• "ground" is fine for "floor".
• Dinnerstein was the one who said that dirt and sawdust could only be in the basement, but this would be apparent to anyone who knew about the factory. The basement was much dirtier than the rest of the factory, and it wouldn't have clogged her nostrils and mouth on any other floor. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with all of that; everything sounds fine to me. Michael Reed (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: Except for the References section, I've finished reviewing the article. As I'm no Leo Frank scholar, I can't comment on the article's coverage of the events and historical accuracy, but in terms of prose I think it looks pretty good. Given the complexity of the case – conflicting testimony galore, multiple appeals, and lots of people to keep track of – I don't think the article is too hard to follow. I have this idea that almost anything, no matter how complicated, can be distilled into simple and easy to follow prose, but that may be wishful thinking in a case as big and complex as this one.

When you do take this to FAR, assuming you eventually will, please let me know on my talk page. Despite all the time I've invested in these reviews, I still only have a shallow understanding of the Frank case – after all, I've only read a few of the smaller sources in the Bibliography, but haven't touched the longer, more often cited ones such as Oney and Dinnerstein. So, I'm curious as to what issues the chosen FAR reviewer uncovers that I missed. Anyway, let me know if there's anything else related to the article that you'd like to discuss.

By the way, it's been a pleasure working with you on this. It's been a very informative experience, both in regards to learning how to be a better peer-reviewer and learning about the Frank case. You're always civil and understanding, and thus very easy to work with :) Michael Reed (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Michael. Since you mentioned References and Alphin, I noticed that it links to Alphin p. 122 on ref 211, but others below it do not do the same. There are a couple other refs, such as Eakin on ref 230 that do so as well, but in general this is not done. I'm thinking it might be good for all books that have a Google Books ebook to go through and link to the specific page that's mentioned, and highlight any relevant text. That way, anyone who is unsure whether the text is supported by the source can verify it. If you think this is a good idea, let me know and I can go through it. It will probably take a while for me, but I think it will make for a much better article as others will be able to verify, but I'll also be able to double check the article as there have been several instances of the text not being supported by the sources (such as the first bullet point about Oney 403-416 above).

It's been a pleasure working with you as well, and I think that bringing it to FAC will be a good experience for me as well since it will be my first FAC. It could even help me learn some things that I can take to other articles, such as OpenBSD. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not much to say other than that I'd appreciate being able to easily verify sources. During my review, that was probably the biggest issue I encountered, i.e., not being able to check if my rewording was properly supported by a citation. Anyway, I look forward to you bringing the article to FAC (not FAR I guess, heh). Finally, we can put an end to this ridiculously long section! Michael Reed (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your tireless work editing and improving the Leo Frank article! Finally we can put that section on this talk page to rest. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Now that I've got one of these I can retire in peace. Michael Reed (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank FAC

I went ahead and nominated Leo Frank for Featured Article. If you like, you can leave comments. I know you're probably burnt out by now, so don't feel obligated, but feel free to check in and respond as you wish. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed burnt out, so I don't plan on leaving comments. Still, thanks for letting me know; I'll be sure to check on the progress there over time. Michael Reed (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sad to see you retire, but thanks for the last-minute improvements to the Frank article. I think I should be good to go for FAC. I probably won't have much more time for a while either, but hopefully I can work on OpenBSD some too eventually. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's great seeing the article get some attention. And I'm glad you mentioned the retirement thing because that was definitely not the intended effect—I'll certainly have some free time during the school year. I've since changed the template to {{semi-retired}} :) Michael Reed (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Michael Reed. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of OpenBSD security features

The article OpenBSD security features has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant with main article.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Michael Reed. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Michael Reed. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)