User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 20

This is the archive of messages posted on Anne Delong's talk page, July to September, 2017.

Please comment on Talk:Harry Lauder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harry Lauder. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN -- thanks!

Thanks very much for bringing this essay to my attention...I had no idea it ever existed and I have never seen it be used in any previous infobox discussion. I shall treasure it always and I will now knowingly nod in its direction whenever I take part in infobox discussions in the future in order to strengthen my arguments. Cassianto^Talk 14:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto, it's always good to know more about Wikipedia policies, but not all infobox discussions involve WP:OWN. There are a lot of legitimate arguments for and against infoboxes and many of the discussions don't involve editors trying to take control of the content of a specific article. Good luck with your editing.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, more wise words from the font of human knowledge, thank you. Now, please take the time to read my thoughts on this ever so interesting subject. Cassianto^Talk 03:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Of interest ?

An MoS RfC about reducing parenthetical information in first sentence saw some mention things like age, birth and death places etc. in bios could be moved to iboxes. During that conversation someone linked Research:Which parts of an article do readers read.. That page contains the following source .... pls note small data pool....only 30 participants.....but still.....Figure 1 on page 4 and Figure 5 on page 9 is reveling

Clark, Malcolm; Ruthven, Ian; O’Brian Holt, Patrik and Song, Dawei (2012). Looking for genre: the use of structural features during search tasks with Wikipedia. Fourth Information Interaction in Context Conference (IIiX 2012). -PDF

We found that our participants’ extensively interacted with layout features, such as tables, titles, bullet lists, contents lists, information boxes, and references. The eye tracking results showed that participants used the format and layout features and they also highlighted them as important. They were able to navigate to useful information consistently,and they were an effective means of locating relevant information for the completion of their tasks with some success...... this finding is partially shown in Figure 1 in regard to the Contents list and Information box. The shapes are extremely helpful and natural for the participants to navigate between.

Though it might be of interest to you.--Moxy (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Moxy. It was interesting. I'd be interested to see a comparison of (1) articles with vs without infoboxes, (2) articles with long vs short lead summaries, and (3) articles with regular vs collapsed tables of contents.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

FlipKey

Hi Anne Delong. You accepted FlipKey for Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipKey (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Cunard. Naturally I !voted "keep" since I thought the article was fine as it was, but I made some improvements as well.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your further improvements on the article, Anne! I noticed you forgot to sign your comment at the AfD. Would you sign it when you get the chance? Cunard (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooops! Done.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Balfour Declaration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Balfour Declaration. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

McLaughlin (automobile)

I see you added a lot to this article 6 or 7 months ago. I would like to change this article's name to McLaughlin Motor Car Company(skipping the Limited). Would you have any objection? Should I be bold about the change or should I go through a consultation process? Finally, I am not a Canadian I was just irritated by the too vague coverage and thought I might be able to improve it. Your thoughts please! Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Eddaido, it is fine with me, as long as you leave a redirect behind. There is likely enough information available to have two articles, one about the company and one about the various models of cars, but until automobile enthusiasts choose to work on that your title is better. I just added information that I found while working on a related subject, and a photo I took of a vehicle I happened to see at an auto show. If anyone objects to the move, they can always start a discussion on the talk page.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani

I noticed that you edited the Maryam Mirzakhani article while it was fully protected. Perhaps I'm misreading WP:GOLDLOCK, but my understanding was that admins aren't supposed to make any substantive edits to {{pp-dispute}}-protected pages, to avoid creating the appearance that admins' views on content carry more weight than non-admins'. Am I mistaken in this regard? If so, my apologies. If not, no worries; I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this policy for future reference. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PinkAmpersand. I came to the page because I was reading an article about Mirzakhani in a newspaper. I noticed that the page had been protected because of disagreement over the nationality of the subject, so I made sure not to write anything about that, so as not, as you said, to give my opinion (if I had one), more weight than that of others.

I knew a lot of people would be reading the article this week because of her death, so I started a career section. Most biographies have one. The policy says "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." I'm pretty sure that I didn't add anything controversial, but just wrote out in prose and substantiated information that was already in the infobox. If there was a discussion that I missed about not having a career section, or you think that the references I added were inappropriate, please write that on the talk page or, now that the protection is over, just remove them, and I will not object.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Gregory Sullivan Isaacs concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gregory Sullivan Isaacs, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Help desk question

Hi Anne! The question you asked on the help desk has been archived, so I will reply here. The failed verification template is only for when the source is related to the subject, but does not include the information that is shown next to the ref tag. If the information is not at all present, remove the citation and replace it with another citation with the information. As you indicated music chart citations, you may want to check archive.org to see previous version of the website. If you cannot verify the claim and it is disputed, remove the information that is shown with the reference. I hope that helps! Cheers, Daylen (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Daylen, that is not at all the situation. It's not a case of claims that are not backed up by the references. There are multiple references to charts on which the single does not appear, but there is no claim in the article that the single has charted; in fact, the article is clear that the single did not appear on these charts. Ever. So why are the references there? Why would I try to find another citation to show that a single did not chart? The singles didn't win Grammy awards either, but that's not a reason to make a reference to grammy.com to prove it. The only reason I can think of for the inclusion of these references is to add thousands of extra links to the chart websites in order to to improve the Search engine optimization of the charts.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Randy Quaid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Anne Delong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

from john@johnserry.com Jserry (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: John Serry Sr. editing and cleanup initiatives.

Hi Ms. Delong: Just a quick note to thank you for your editorial assistance in the "Cleanup" of this article. Your kind and thoughtful editorial expertise is greatly appreciated. If possible, kindly reconsider and reverse the removal of various sentences found within the very start of the the biography which you identified as "promotional references" -- for example- the citation that the artist performed during live performances and concerts which were broadcast nationwide-- these citations are actually clarifications of the standard of artistry which was attained by the artist during a time when only the most accomplished musicians were invited to perform live on the Columbia Broadcasting System for Voice of America and network television. The references are not self serving but statements of fact during an era when accordionists in the United States were often classified by their musical peers as "second class" musicians--in fact the accordion was often referred to as an orphaned instrument during this period. In addition, kindly reconsider your deletion of the reference to his work as both a solo concert artist as well as an orchestral accordionist since each of these performance skills are entirely different and reflect very different professional capabilities and talents. In addition the reference to this musician's interest in fostering peace through his musical performances is founded not merely on his use performances on the organ during interfaith ceremonies ( at a time when such ceremonies were often condemned and prohibited by religious clergy in the 1960s & 1970s), but also in his extensive work for Voice of America at CBS as well as the content of his compositions (See American Rhapsody for example. Thanks again for your kind insights, thoughtful assistance and balanced editorial assistance in the course of improving this article along with my best wishes for the continued success of your endeavors on Wikipedia. With best regards. JJ72.69.152.90 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JJ. While editing the article, I checked the references to see if they were news or magazine articles, concert or recording reviews, books published through an editor, or other independently published writings specifically about the subject, in this case Mr. Serry. The policy of Wikipedia is that the text in the article is to be a neutral summary of information in these independent writings. If I have removed any such references, please point them out. As far as I can see, there never was a reference next to the sentence about the nationwide live radio and television broadcasts. The references that I removed were ones that didn't mention Mr. Serry, or were user-contributed databases, or were not independently written. If I hadn't taken those out, another editor would have. Note that it is not always necessary to have references to items in the lead summary if the detailed text further down in the article has references to the same information.

I'm presuming that it was you that added all of those newspaper references. If so, and you know what the titles of the articles are, or the URL to the newspaper website, I hope you will add them. I can't tell what they say about Mr. Serry; if they don't mention him they should be removed.

I'm sure that what you say above about the reputation of accordionists is all true, but Wikipedia can't be used to promote opinions or ideas, and if journalists, music critics, or other authors who are not friends, relatives or close colleagues of Mr. Serry have not published articles or books about how these topics and how they relate to him specifically, then it is unsupported opinion, and it should not be in the article about him.

One last thing- It's fine for you to leave messages on my talk page and I am happy to reply here. You may, however, wish to leave messages on the article talk page instead, where they may be read by other editors who will help to improve the article. Now that I have edited the article, it's on my watchlist, so I will see your comments there as well as here.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Ms. Delong - Thank you again for your kind and prompt response. I appreciate your analysis and clarification regarding the use of reference sources and hoped merely to underscore the importance of avoiding the temptation to eliminate reference sources which may not necessarily be pristine, but serve to provide documentation in support of the subject matter contained within the articles ( i.e. such as the name of an orchestra, the name of its conductor and the date and times during which the orchestral ensemble flourished). With this in mind, it might be advisable to refrain from eliminating all such reference citations in so far as they serve to support the general context of the article itself. In reference to the elimination of phrases which you have described as "self promoting" or "unsubstantiated opinions" (such as the use of the terms virtuoso, recording live broadcasts nationwide, concert soloist as well as orchestral accordionist), it should be kept in mind that this musician, along with several others of his era in the United States (See Charles Magnante, Pietro Deiro and Dick Contino, aspired to elevate the performance level of the instrument before live audiences throughout the USA at a time when the instrument was essentially embraced by audiences, critics and conductors within this country as essentially a "Folk Instrument"--only suitable for performing polkas and ethnic music. The absence of reference citations from "authoritative independent sources" should not be surprising since each of these musicians attempted to overcome the widespread preconceptions which prevailed throughout the professional artistic community regarding the accordion's potentiality as a "serious" orchestral instrument. ( SeeAccordion music genres - use in classical music]] for more details). With this in mind, the use of such terms as virtuoso, concert soloist and leading orchestral soloist are best regarded not as self promoting as some might suggest, but rather as technical clarifications of the level of artistry achieved by each of these musicians during their performance endeavors and their attempts to educate their fellow musicians despite the level of ignorance and misunderstanding which prevailed at that time. The use of such terms underscores the obstacles which each of these artists were required to overcome in the course of their performance careers as well as the high level of their artistic achievements, as evidenced by public performances within premier concert venues and published compositions for the instrument. I hope that these thoughts help to clarify matters somewhat, in the hope that you and your fellow editors reconsider the elimination of these terms from the introductory sentences of this biography and the biographies of the musicians listed above. Once again, many thanks for your kind and thoughtful analysis and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the future- Respectfully yours, JJ 72.69.152.90 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)72.69.152.90 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)JJ

Dear JJ 72.69.152.90: I will address some of your points:

• nationwide live broadcasts - the article already mentions this; no need to have it multiple times
• Virtuoso - If a music critic has called him this in a printed review, then the Wikipedia article can use the term; otherwise not, since this term is reserved for musicians who have been widely acclaimed as having exceptional skill.
• concert soloist - I have been unable to find a definition of this term, but the context of the article makes it clear that he played in ensembles which gave concerts, so the word "concert" is redundant even if applicable.
• orchestral accordionist - this is not a commonly used musical term. In fact, more than 95% of the Google hits for "orchestral accordionist" are links to copies of the John Serry, Sr. Wikipedia article and other WP articles to which information about Mr. Serry have been added.
• lack of reliable sources for accordionists because they are considered folk musicians - If a musician or ensemble is popular, or in some way exceptional, critics will write about this, whatever genre they are considered to be. (see this and this and this.) The majority of musicians, whatever their instrument, are striving to promote their preferred genre, style, performance excellence or compositions; these are worthwhile goals; those who succeed are written about and cited as influential in book, magazine or newspaper retrospectives, which provided reliable sources for Wikipedia articles.

In spite of what I have written here, you are quite welcome to advocate for your changes on the article talk page, or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. I'm not a classical music expert;the editors there may agree with you.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Delong - This is a very interesting discussion- perhaps I can help to clarify a fine technical point regarding the differentiation between a "Orchestral Accordionist" and a "Concert Accordionist" since the terms are best understood as nouns rather than adjectives. An "Orchestral Accordionist" is generally described as a permanent staff member of an established orchestral ensemble (in this case the Columbia Broadcasting System's Pan American Orchestra & the Viva America Orchestra at CBS and the CBS house Orchestra) who has a permanent chair within the orchestral ensemble. (as opposed to a temporary part during a specific performance). The responsibilities of the orchestral accordionist include 1) performing the specific part assigned to the accordion within the orchestral score 2) monitoring the entire orchestral score during the performance and assuming responsibility for playing the part assigned to either the violins, violas, cellos, oboe, flutes, french horn or trumpet in the event that certain members of these sections either fail to respond to a conductor's cue or unable to follow the conductor's specific instructions during a performance. In this sense, the orchestral accordionist utilizes the sweeping tonal range of the accordion to serve as a fail safe performance resource in the event that an individual section of the orchestral fails to respond appropriately to the conductor. He must assume this role for each of these non-percussive sections of the entire orchestra--a responsibility not assigned to any other member of the orchestra and must be prepared to read the entire orchestral score during a performance and respond to the conductor to assume any part of the score at a moments notice 3) The Orchestral Accordionists must be continuously vigilant since that conductor may also call upon him without advance warning to "double-up" (i.e. play concurrently) with any other non-percussive section of the orchestra in order to produce a particular tonal quality (keeping in mind that as a free instrument with a tonal chamber, the accordion is capable of harmonic sympathetic resonance with the entire orchestra). A "Concert Accordionist" does not generally function as a permanent member of an orchestral ensemble, or assume these specific wide ranging responsibilities. He is typically assigned a specific instrumental score for the accordion only and is assigned the responsibility of performing only that exclusive part--which often requires the unique technical talents of an accomplished soloist. He typically performs either as a soloist or a featured instrumentalist with orchestra accompaniment -- for example during the performance of a Concerto for Accordion and Orchestra. Concert accordionists also perform as soloists in a concert hall setting without orchestral support or as musical collaborators with singers. For example, in this case Serry performed as a Concert Accordionist in collaboration with Marianne Oswald At Town Hall in 1942 and as a Concert Accordionist as a soloist at the Radio City Music Hall in 1933. While the distinction between the two roles is perhaps technical in nature, it is worth noting since this particular musician demonstrated a capability for assuming both roles during his professional career. Perhaps this analysis helps to clarify the appropriate use of these two terms at the start of the article. Thanks again for your kind consideration and best wishes 104.207.219.150 (talk)PS —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop lecturing me about this stuff, and instead find articles written by journalists and/or music critics, in which they have written specifically about Mr. Serry's playing and his performance roles in various concerts. Articles should be summaries of what published sources say, not what Wikipedia editors conclude. If critics and journalists refer to him using one these terms, that would settle the matter. If not, then the fine distinction between them is unimportant in this context.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In so far as the entire Musical Style/Performance Style section of the article John Serry Sr. has been deleted as per objections cited above by User:Francis Schonken and User:Anne Delong, the removal of a banner which flags the article as a "personal reflection/opinions essay" which is founded upon "primary sources" published by the subject of the article should be eliminated. No other specific instances of the excessive utilization of "primary reference sources" or "personal refletons/opinions" within the main body of the article have been identified by either User:Francis Schonken orUser: Anne Delong. Also kindly note that Anne Delong indicates on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music talk page that she is not an expert in classical music and is not comfortable making such sweeping changes to an article such as this ( See her remarks to Schonken & Arendt - "Francis Schonken and Gerda Arendt, I appreciate your input and participation. I am not an expert in the area of classical music (I am more into traditional folk genres) and I am a little uncomfortable in making so many serious changes to a B class article. There's also some relevant discussion on my talk page if you are interested.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)"). Apparently, serious changes to an article which has been posted on Wikipedia for several years is not required in the view of this editor. With this in mind, kindly reverse the imposition of the warning banners cited above. Thank you for your kind consideration. Respectfully yours 104.207.219.150 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)PS

Hello 104.207.219.150. As I said before, I did not feel knowledgeable enough to edit the section about style. It was not I who added the flags or made changes to that section. You should be leaving this message on the article talk page rather than here, so that the editors who did make the changes will see it.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Editor review

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editor review. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings

You added this article to the Canada 10k challenge page. That band appears to be American. Did you mean to add that to the US 50k challenge page? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, OhanaUnited. I was going through the list of Canadian band stubs, and I ended up working on that article when I read about them performing at a Canadian festival and being reviewed in a Canadian magazine. I should have looked more closely at their origins. I replaced that entry with one about a band from Manitoba.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)