User talk:Barbara (WVS)/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Happy New Year, Barbara (WVS)!

Happy New Year!

Barbara (WVS),
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Eddie891 Talk Work 00:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018!

wbm1058 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you wbm1058! You are so kind to encourage me with your well wish-ing. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

By definition, someone with a history of acrimony towards one party cannot offer a neutral third opinion. Robere is... troublesome at the moment. I will be striking his comments, I think. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to the matter. Let me know if there anything else I should do. At this point in time, I have been encouraged by the attention of other editors to the article rather than only the two of us and our disagreements. That is all that I want, the involvement of others rather than just the two of us. With your involvement, now we have a 4th opinion, sorta. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of Third Opinion

In looking over the history at Talk:Vagina and the Third Opinion noticeboard, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that an experienced editor was either, first, deliberately misusing the Third Opinion noticeboard in order to pursue what appears to be an old quarrel that I don't know the details of, or, second, negligently misusing the Third Opinion noticeboard in a way indicating that they weren't trying to understand what the function of each of the various noticeboards is. At a few seconds after Gregorian New Year, UTC, there had already been discussions by other users besides Barbara and Flyer22. It appears that the immediate issue was a large deletion by Flyer22, but there were already other editors who were clearly watching the talk page, so that it very much looks as though Third Opinion was used in order to get one more editor who hadn't been involved. In particular, the fact that the Third Opinion query explicitly asked about conduct, and the Third Opinion noticeboard explicitly states that it is for content issues and not conduct issues, makes the posting really stand out as using Third Opinion to pursue an old grievance. Unfortunately, the only two ways that I can interpret it are as deliberate misuse or as grossly negligent misuse, not as a newbie mistake or even a simple mistake by an experienced editor who was trying to use our complex procedures properly.

If you "really, really, really hate" to post a query, then you don't have to do it. Just don't do it. I find the edit summary incredible, not deserving of belief by H. sapiens.

That is how it looks to me, like misuse of process by an experienced editor who should know better, and I hadn't been involved. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Response

First of all thank you for your time and opinion. I had not heard of the third opinion until the day/night that I explained my frustration with content deletion on this article's talk page. I am very unfamiliar with issues regarding the deletion of such a large amount of content since it has never happened before. I have never had the need to request the help of an uninvolved editor until I began a search for a way to address the conflicts that I was having with F22 RB.
So yes, such an experienced editor who has had no experience in asking for assistance had never heard of the third opinion (a complex procedure?). I believed I was asking for the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. I provide comments when notified on my talk page. I anticipated that an experienced, uninvolved editor would come to the talk page, make comments and then we would have the guidance we needed to de-escalate the conflict.
Here is what I read about the 3O regarding :
"Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out."
My major reason for asking for help was to address content issues. In addition, it seemed that conduct could be included if the major concerns were about content and so I asked for a third opinion about that, too. It seemed to me that if my request was made in the wrong place, an uninvolved editor would help with that. I'm not sure why that was not done now that I've after read your comments.
I was responding to the editing problem and the frustration of having well-referenced content removed-it had nothing to do with the past. Before this event and off wikipedia, I have communicated with other editors and asked for advice on how to handle contentious editing because I was concerned about another editor who was deleting content. I have followed the other editor's advice to the letter. I have almost no experience at all in notice boards, except to ask an administrator to block a user who was vandalizing an article. I even posted that request in the wrong place.
I wouldn't even know to deliberately misuse the third option even if I wanted to. I am inept in dealings with notice boards and even administrators. Experienced editors don't necessarily have experience in administrative procedures. You will barely even find me commenting RfA's and the last time I did I ended up confusing one editor for another, again inexperience and ineptness. You won't find me commenting on much of anything administrative - that is not where my interests lie. My editing is centered around adding content and references. Anyone who has any reason to question this only has to look at my editing history. I've been translating and inserting medical content related to this article on other language wikipedias- to add content and references on topics related to Women's health. These are my priorities. I don't generally get involved in talk pages. Most of my edits to talk pages have been to welcome new users and the creation of new talk pages when I create a new article. That is my experience.
You will never find me bringing up any old quarrels, ever. I have moved on and learned from an event that happened years ago. You won't find any clue or inkling of a response from me related to any past quarrels. Even if you go back to view my entire editing history, you probably won't find any quarrels, I'm just not like that. I asked for help via the third opinion to address unkind remarks about me because recent talk pages messages were uncivil on which F22 RB brought up past quarrels. Then after reading the guidelines on the 3O procedure page, I posted a request for help with the article AND behavior It seemed that the 'third opinion' procedure was mostly intended to address content but did not disclude uncivil behavior. Even on the article talk page I don't bring up old quarrels. I've even left a few congenial messages on F22 RB's talk page alerting her to things I thought she might have an interest.
I've done my best to not even respond to content related to old quarrels. On this talk page or the article talk page there is no inkling that I want to bring up past quarrels. You have one side of the issue because I don't respond to comments about old quarrels. And I still don't want to discuss old quarrels because that is not why I here and that is not why I've been editing the article.
Also on the article talk page, you should find my request for collaborative editing four times. I suggested that a collaboration had the potential of bringing this article to good status. I made some editing errors and made assumptions about styling, but out of 106 edits, the discussions on this talk page involved less than 12. As soon as consensus was established, I expressed my willingness to go along with the 'decision' and even thanked other editors who became involved.
If you have the inclination or if it matters at this point, you will see that the time stamp for my request of a third opinion precedes involvement of other editors on this talk page. At the time of my request for the involvment of an uninvolved editor via 3O, there were no other editors involved in the content disagreements. As soon as other editors became involved in the discussions, I posted a note on the article talk page stating that I believed the issue was resolved because other editors had begun to provide feedback. I was glad for this. If I am reading the time-line correctly, other editors finally became involved before the third opinion even weighed in-I didn't understand what was going with that either since two other editors, administrators?, were disusing whether or not someone 'doing' the third opinion was biased. I didn't understand that exchange at all.
Here is the timeline as I understand it.
Deletion of large amount of content > Notice left on the 3O page > Other editors become involved > the 3O editor responds to request on the talk page > I post the message that said that the issue was resolved > Other editors began to give feedback > I concur with the consensus to delete redundant content > Other editors begin a systematic review and improvement to the article > I express my gratitude for their involvement but need to clarify an issue in which (again) I have inadvertently insulted someone. > I make another edit to add content and a reference > I find your message on my talk page > After the paramedics restart my heart, I read and re-read your message wondering how I got into this mess > I try to explain things.
There is no reason at all for me to bring up past quarrels, it is a waste of time and I don't do it. I don't take revenge and I like to work with editors and not against them. Since I rarely if ever have such problems with contentiousness. I stated that I really didn't want to ask for a 3O because I had hoped that working on the article would be collaborative instead of something that wasn't.
As for attributing my request to other possible motivations I can only say that I edit in good faith and am passionate to provide as much information as I can for women who want it. I've never been so misinterpreted and reamed out by another editor in ten years. I feel like a doggy chew toy. Another learning moment for me. I would welcome any other communication with you via email or other means to explain things further.
The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As an addendum you might want to read the post entitled Vagina on this page where I apologize for a lot of things and try to address issues with F22 RB. That is more revelatory about my motivation and background preceding the recent disaster.

Kierston Todt

I added WikiProject tags to Talk:Kierston Todt. More tags would be appropriate. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish more editors would do this. Then I would know what to fix. This certainly is one concrete way to improve articles and I never thought of doing this. I think I will from now on. If you would like to go through any of my other articles (of course you don't have to) to add tags, please feel free to do so. Just go to my article creation log. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's Health proposed logo (revised)

Updated with a different pregnant woman's silhouette
Maybe head of this woman be a good silhouette

Hi, I used a different woman for the pregnant woman profile on the right. Let me know what you think – I promise to be more responsive. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I like this logo better than the one before and I appreciate all the time that you have already put into creating it. It might not be 'global' enough. Perhaps a scarf on the head of the younger woman would be a better representation since so many cultures use a head covering. Think of the traditional head covering of a woman in Africa. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Three... two... one...

And the race is on for the first redlink to be corrected! I'm fond of the idea of parental monster spray, but our editors' attraction to the macabre will probably prevail. So: top bets are killer moose and killer amoebae. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The killer ameoba article actually exists. I propose an article about the pain in your nose. Do you think editors will create these articles? I don't. Too many editors have sockpuppets stuck in their nose. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For inspiring the creation of Moose attacks and continuing to provide much-needed levity to The Signpost with your column. Brava! ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Signpost Barnstar
 For your great work in reviving The Signpost, especially the Humor section, it is my pleasure to award you a well earned Signpost Barnstar Eddie891 Talk Work 02:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This pretty unexpected. Thank you. Can we make it a DYK? ...that the Signpost awards its own barnstars? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 15:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I decided to award this somewhat randomly. In addition, I wanted to thank you for always being happy and lightening the mood. You may(or may not) be surprised, but I hate humor (Humour?!) and am continuously surprised that your section actually makes me laugh. When you told me to ask the NYPL to offer you a job, that was the happiest, and most I have laughed in the past month. So...Thanks for all you do. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, my job on earth is done. I made someone laugh, that was the last thing on my bucket list. Seriously, did I get the job? I suspect that you might be a librarian yourself (you don't even have to confirm or deny this) and I have NEVER met one who has admitted to having a sense of humour. Thanks for your barnstar, again. Perhaps we can meet up to discuss the Signpost at a wikimania event. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Does this mean I didn't get the job? Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 08:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Next level visual humour

Nice graphic for the upcoming humor column! It might be fun to use imagelinks and include a few easter eggs, what do you think? If this is unfamiliar, see Anna Frodesiak. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. I didn't even know you could do image links. I'll try. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm dying'! Tampa is on the map. I found it a couple of months ago and loved it. I wonder what other gems are in there. I didn't find the land of Signpost on the map yet. Best of the Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Barbara, I think you lost this link: User talk:Bri/Signpost2018Issue2Imagemap. Could you have a look-see and tell me what you think? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice on improving our recommending tool

Hi Barbara (WVS),

Hope you are doing well! Thank you for using our tool, and giving us feedback for improvement. We've made some improvements, and are preparing to send another round of recommendations for your project. But before that, we are considering two possible factors to implement into our algorithms potentially, and wonder what's your opinion on them.

1. Small project promotion. An editor who has a wide range of subject interest can be recommended to multiple projects according to our current algorithms. When this happens, do you think it matters to make choices among those projects, i.e., should we prioritize on those smaller projects, just randomly choose one project, or do you have other thoughts?

2. Female editor promotion. Gender imbalance has been a long-term issue in Wikipedia which consequently caused the uncoverage of many female related topics. What do you think about the idea of promoting more female editors in the recommendation list? Bobo.03 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I've done all the leg work regarding the posting of recommendations on the talk pages of other projects and even the project members. This is not something that needs to be done. What does 'female editor promotion' mean? All I have asked is to update the WikiProject Women's Health main page. An editor needs to have the ability to change the information on the page. Instead, it is done automatically by ? who has no idea what articles are part of the project. We need a feed derived from a keyword list to flag articles that may be of interest to the project. As far as I have been able to determine, efforts to address the gender problems are made up of a lot of hand-wringing and wailing with little support from the WMF to actually do something-like fund efforts to concretely address concerns. $ is given for projects to recruit librarians, students and small wikipedias. Is there a WMF staff person in place to address gender issues? If so, I don't know who they are and have never had any contact from such a person. Please see if there is a way to update the project page and an article feed. I appreciate your post to my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For boldly creating the Vaginal support structures page. Saw that appear in new pages and was surprised to find a well-written article. Home Lander (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Home Lander, I am equally surprised to hear it described as well-written. Typically, that is not how my work is characterized. Thank you so much. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 00:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Vaginal support structures

Hi Barbara! I had some content come up in our copyvio detector. It looks like you've tagged this as coming from Gray's Anatomy, but it also looks like it's showing up in the reports, such as this one. You may need to add the book itself to these areas (ie, with page numbers), if anyone questions it, since some of the portions are a bit hard to find in the book. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for letting me know. I will go and remove the content immediately and THEN figure out what I did wrong. You are kind to let me know. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I found a copyright problem on Hymenectomy, with material copied from here. Please be careful not to add any copyright content to Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to send you a link to the iThenticate report via email, Barbara. I figure that may help some. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ~ Winged BladesGodric 10:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mel Metcalfe mystery mooted

Rgdg the upcoming Humor column and its top ranked item. Mel Metcalfe is the ex-husband of Portia de Rossi, who is now married to Ellen DeGeneres. This fact is missing from our article and basically the only difference to the German article which includes it. (Cited to WP:DAILYMAIL, so neener neener German editors with your lousy standards. Besides which, Tonmeister is an obviously made-up word for The Katzenjammers.) So the article's popularity isn't quite as mysterious as it seems for "just" an Academy award sound engineer. I happen to know a Grammy award winner who doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, but neither does his ex. Which proves yet again that if you really want to be notable on Wikipedia, either play a game of baseball or make a porn movie. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not a card-carrying member of the guild of hollywood editors and so really missed the boat on that one. I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate your response into the article and at this point I think it may belong in the comments section. I would like to put it in the comments section before publication. I know that is pretty weird, but it can work. Especially if you make your reply a little more inflated and nasty. I love your last line. AND it looks like those who work on the humour article have a little more license to create a signpost article that doesn't fit the mold. I believe some, rare group of WP editors like it when another editor corrects the other because we love to see the fallibility of each other, so what do you think I look at as getting a pie in the face. Who doesn't like to see that?
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 10:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
*sigh* Somebody already doesn't get the joke in the column. Hope you are enjoying writing, because I'm enjoying reading. Keep on doing exactly what you're doing. I'm tempted to add User:DataflowBot to the list of authors. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Time travel back to July 2017...

Hi, Barbara. I've been looking through the archive of AFD's related to disability where I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedridden. In the discussion you undertook to expand the (barely a dicdef) stub, but it looks like you haven't managed to get around to it. If you don't mind I would like to have a go at it. To avoid duplication of effort, if you have a forgotten draft, or even just a list of sources, tucked away somewhere I'd be glad to adopt it from you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I need to set up a 'to-do' list sub page to help me solve this issue of mine. I tend to forget. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 10:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I keep a list of drafts in my sandbox for just this reason, but even so, just this week two forgotten ones popped up, retrieved by the AfC team. Maybe we could request a nag-bot to do this or something. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Nagbot! I love it. Where do you submit requests for the creation of this bot? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:BOTREQ ☆ Bri (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yo

If you feel like a chat, ring me. (I can't find my phone. It's here somewhere.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't find my keys....So sorry I missed this message, I will try when the sun is on the other side of the planet. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost / research newsletter

Hi Barbara,

thanks for starting the draft for the new issue already! Regarding your questions:

Regarding the upcoming issue: Are you planning to write full reviews (or at least brief summaries in your own words) of all five of the new papers you have listed so far in the draft? If so, great! If not, we should first list them in the Etherpad so that other folks have a chance to decide if they would like to contribute a full review. In case a paper doesn't find any takers, we will then list it in a future issue under the "Other recent publications" rubric, as usual with an excerpt of the abstract (we shouldn't copypaste full abstracts generally). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I defer to your experience on whether or not to list these current articles on the etherpad. I don't mind at all if another editors turns my cut and pasted abstracts into something better and not as 'drafty'. I've had some family situations that have I have to attend to and may not be able to complete what I have started. And also, you probably noticed that it takes me a while to get into the swing of things regarding the 'how-tos' of contributing to the Signpost. At least I know that I can help a little bit at least to set things up. The only problem I have is that I am not able to understand the really, really techy stuff that researchers report and you can probably seen this because of the studies that I have listed. So I couldn't really ever take over reviewing the more esoteric stuff that I've seen analyzed. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 11:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again (belatedly) for your work on the last issue! Yeah, it's often tricky to grasp the exact methodology used, in particular if the research is not in one's own field of expertise. Nevertheless, even a superficial coverage where we just excerpt the abstract is valuable for our readers. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-02

Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Map improvements 2018, Notifications, Structured discussions and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

  • Collaboration and Language are now going their way separately. Updates about Content Translation are not included in this newsletter anymore. Please refer to the Language report.
  • Collaboration has a new project: Map improvements 2018.
    • The team’s engagement with maps is based on 2017 Community Wishlist proposal Kartographer Improvements, though the work won’t be restricted to items named there.
    • The project is currently in its very early research and planning stages.
    • It has a limited term that’s scheduled to conclude at the end of June 2018.

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

Problems

  • The explanation of the abbreviations on the recent changes page could overlap with the list of changes. This has been fixed. [5][6]
  • On Related changes it was not possible to use Saved filters for several articles. It has been fixed. [7]
  • Transclude special:relatedchanges on a subpage removed #contentSub. This is now fixed. [8]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

  • The wording when you send a thanks message has changed. Instead of Yes or No it says Thank and Cancel. It is also now easier to understand that all thanks are public. [9]
  • A notification is now sent to account owner on multiple unsuccessful login attempts. [10]

Problems

  • Between week 7 and 20 February, when you thanked someone for an edit, the thank went to the latest unthanked edit to that page. It didn't matter which edit you tried to give thanks for. This has been fixed. [11]
  • Long page titles on Special:Notifications were not truncated. This is now fixed. [12]

Structured discussions [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

  • You can now press CTRL + ENTER to post a new message. [13]
  • It wasn't possible to create a description of a Structured discussions board. This has been fixed. [14]

Problems

  • On wikis using the Beta feature, it is not possible to enable or disable Structured discussion from the Beta page. However, admins can create and move the pages.

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

11:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Barbara (WVS). Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Annual Reviews.
Message added 12:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Others are in process, have pinged coordinator about Newspapers.com Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you help. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Following

Barbara (WVS), I was just sent an email about this. It came from an editor who has worked with me and you, knows of my history with you, would rather the two us not interact much, and is concerned that you have followed me again. Given that AnaSoc is not involved in any article you edit, do you have a valid explanation for how you became aware of her...other than having looked at my edit history? It should also be noted that this editor is concerned about you inserting yourself in my situation with AnaSoc (in whatever way). I would hope not. My interaction with you at the Vagina article is more than enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been 'welcoming' new editors all morning long. AnnaSoc is a new editor. I welcomed her. If you firmly believe that I am following you, take me to ANI now. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 18:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you had Trappist the monk's talk page watchlisted or perhaps it is just a coincidence and you ended up at AnaSoc's talk page, which I highly doubt. Whatever the case, as is clear by the email I received, it is not a good idea for you to visit the talk page of an editor I am in a dispute with, at least not so soon after I have commented on that editor's talk page. The editor who sent me the email, and who may or may not weigh in here, read both of the WP:ANI cases involving the two of us and witnessed how you would thank (via WP:Echo) or award barnstars to editors I was in a dispute with. AnaSoc is a new editor, obviously. She is being guided by others. All you did was offer her a Welcome template, but even that was viewed suspiciously by an editor aware of my history with you. And I became suspicious when I saw it as well. Any appearance that you have followed me, even if you haven't, is something best avoided. I will not be taking you to WP:ANI at this time, but the editor who emailed me was more than ready to take the matter to WP:ANI had it involved the two of us (you and me) butting heads yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm ready. Please let the other editor know that I am ready for ANI. I am not butting heads. Again, you aren't listening. Or you could just plain stay off my talk page, whichever you prefer. I don't have any user pages on my watchlist. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 18:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm listening. Follow me, or suddenly turn up at other articles that I significantly edit, and we will wind up at WP:ANI. And this very thread will serve as evidence of you intentionally following me to annoy right after I made it clear that you should not. It didn't work out for you those other two times, under your "main" account either. And considering that you didn't even show up in those two threads, you didn't seem ready in the least then. But, hey, people can change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: - Barbara and AnaSoc are both affiliated with Wiki Education programs. When AnaSoc expressed interest in editing articles related to women's health (specifically, the clitoris article), introducing her to Barbara felt like a natural move, since that is an area she edits in quite a lot. Your interaction with AnaSoc was just after her first foray into the subject, and thus coincided with the connection with Barbara. Barbara's welcome following your engagement with AnaSoc just seems like an unfortunate coincidence. Indeed, although I have been aware of your past interactions, it did not play a role in my decision to make the connection, and had I known this would be the result I certainly would have timed it differently. My apologies for inadvertently exacerbating what I can tell is a tricky relationship. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ryan (Wiki Ed), you are saying that you made Barbara aware of AnaSoc? When? It doesn't seem to have been hours before or after I interacted with AnaSoc, which makes the matter look the way it does to those familiar with my history with Barbara. I did not know that you were aware of my history with Barbara, but I don't fault you for any of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I introduced them by email, yes. Yesterday. I'm certainly not up on all of the history, but I have enough of a general sense to understand why the timing could be misconstrued, and why it would have been a better idea to wait. Something I'll try to take more care with in the future, should something similar come up again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

List of vaginal tumors

Hi Barbara, I see you are the largest contributor to this article and I just wanted to let you know that many references on this page are out of order. I've started rearranging them to correct this but I'm turning in for the night so I thought I would let you know in case you want to continue tidying up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me take a look, the last thing I ever want to do is to make work for you so if you want, hold off until I can correct things myself. Sorry to cause you this trouble. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
OH! Please don't trouble yourself at this time because I'm not finished adding references! The references are in their current order because it is the order that they were found and added. I need to add more and I don't want to mess up your efforts. Is there a guideline that states that the references have to be ordered? I also want to alphabetize the list and that would mess your work up even more. Thank you so much doing this much work already because I know how tedious it can be. I don't want you to have to waste any more of your time. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Barbara (WVS). Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI

As seen here, I took the matter to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

File for future humour, maybe

This is the entirety of Gibbons–Hawking ansatz: "In mathematics, the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz is a method of constructing gravitational instantons introduced by Gary Gibbons and Stephen Hawking (1978, 1979). It gives examples of hyperkähler manifolds in dimension 4 that are invariant under a circle action." I don't feel very enlightened. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Are kidding? Everyone knows that. Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, right, hyperkähler manifolds not hyperkahler manifolds. I missed the umlaut, it all makes sense now. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Next time you leave me a message, make sure you provide the wikilinks, I'm really not as smart as everyone thinks I am. Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Epidermoid cyst

I undid your edits to Epidermoid cyst because they were incorrect. The cysts are not merely a vaginal problem, and can affect both genders and appear in other locations, as demonstrated by the picture of one on an earlobe on that page. Also, you removed a citation saying, "-content-ref; At the bottom of the online source, it states: "BAD PATIENT INFORMATION LEAFLET PRODUCED AUGUST 2004", perhaps the information is for patients who are bad but that is unlikely". However, "BAD" stands for British Association of Dermatologists, as indicated at the top and bottom of the cited page. Please be more careful when making such edits in the future. Thank you. -- HiEv 04:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

edit-a-thon

Wikipedia:Meetup/Pittsburgh/ArtandFeminism2018CMOA. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-03

Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Map improvements 2018, Notifications, Structured discussions and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

The Collaboration team has announced the start of a new project: In-Context Help and Onboarding. The idea is to improve retention of new wiki editors by giving them short tutorials and other training experiences related to, and triggered by, their current activities on the wikis (that’s the “in context” part). The project follows from the conclusions of the New Editor Experiences research. The work is in its very early stages, but we’d like to hear from people with ideas on the subject—particularly if you have experience supporting or training new contributors.

Map improvements 2018 [More information]

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

  • Number of edit to show in recent changes information text was incorrect in Special:Preferences. It has been rephrased. [16]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

Future changes

Structured discussions [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

Problems

  • It was not possible to opt-in and opt-out Structured discussions on wikis using it as a Beta feature. It is now fixed. [21]

Future changes

  • The visual editor and 2017 wikitext editor interface is going to change for consistency. The toolbar, dialogs and menus will appear slightly bigger; some icons will look different. Content or functionality will not change. That change will apply to Structured Discussions as well. [22]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

12:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost

The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may particulalry interest you. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Barbara (WVS), thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

An acorn for you!

For finally getting Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels on the Main Page Ribbet32 (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ribbet32. It was a long time coming but worth the wait. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

How about a humor collab with EEng?

EEng? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help out, though it's hard to be funny on demand. EEng 08:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I am coaxing you/him into it as we type. I'm setting up the environment that is probably most suitable and that exploints your/his ability to make short, pithy and humourous remarks. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 05:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels

On 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that squirrels may be a major cybersecurity threat (suspect pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

WHOA! almost 12,000 hits. I'm speechless. Barbara ✐  ✉ 05:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Squirrel cyberterrorism DYK

FYI, Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels is on the frontpage right now. Just funny 'cause we both worked on it as a lark. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite lark-like. Still notable and suitably referenced. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 05:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The Cybersquirrel Barnstar
For your efforts to educate about the dangers of electrical disruptions caused by squirrels, here's Sparky the Squirrel. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the squirrel-star. You are very kind and I am honored beyond belief. Barbara ✐  ✉ 06:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the article about squirrels causing electrical disruptions. There has been electrical disruptions caused by squirrels in Wisconsin. I enjoyed reading the article. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

RFD, the talk page of the article is even funnier than the article. Wisconsin probably has other types of wildlife that cause similar problems. Birds and raccoons also get fried in transformers to cause electrical distribution. But I haven't worked on those articles...yet. Thank you for the kind message on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Starting your Signpost piece

I'm trying something new; would you help? There are instructions here on creating an irregular contribution for The Signpost. You could try to follow them and help me debug the process. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure I will try it out. I understand the need for a guinea pig. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it worked. Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Sort of. There are some weird effects of its being created in the Wikipedia namespace, so I moved it to User:Barbara (WVS)/Humour. I've got a ping out to a WMF engineer to see if we can create things in the creator's own userspace. Anyhow you're free to edit it up ... as before, suggest you replace the "full width content" with whatever you're writing for the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I apologize. I am actually working on two articles. The first article is the regular featured humour article. My second article, which doesn't have to go in the next issue of the Signpost, is an interview with an editor. I am doing the interview because the editor has a reputation for being humourous. So....it is an interview with a funny editor. So when you interview an editor with a sense of humor, you get another funny article. I don't know if this will fly with the rest of the Signpost staff, but we will see how it turns out. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

The 100 Skins of the Onion

Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.

Red onion cross section

From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

Links

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Excel

I work the domain of disambiguation pages a lot. Many times I'm not familiar with many of the topics listed on a disambiguation page. What I generally do is make sure that the short description of the topic is in sync with the definition of the topic given in the lead sentence of the article about it. Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet developed by Microsoft...

So on Excel,

is probably adequate, and in conformance with the advice at WP:DDD: Keep descriptions short.

However, there is no harm in clarifying what a "spreadsheet" is. A spreadsheet is an interactive computer application...

That pipes to application software. An application program (app or application for short) is a computer program designed to perform a group of coordinated functions, tasks, or activities for the benefit of the user. Examples of an application include a word processor, a spreadsheet...

Now I'll stop following the links (which is kind of like opening Russian dolls ) and just tell you something from my personal (expert) knowledge as a computer programmer. There are two basic kinds of software: application software and system software. A spreadsheet is clearly a form of application, not system, software.

So while your edit is OK as it just broadens the scope from stating which type of program (application or system) to simply stating it's a program, I wanted to clarify the misconception indicated by your edit summary.

In the old days before smart phones, application programs were generally called just that... but when smartphones came along, I'm guessing that the phone company marketing departments decided that "application" sounded kind of geeky, and hence the word was shortened to the more sexy sounding "app". But that's just my gut feeling though, and I wouldn't add that statement to any Wikipedia article without first finding a reliable source that confirmed my gut feeling. wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your note here on my talk page. I acknowledge your expertise. As a non-expert, I probably have a different vocabulary that is not as precise as yours. Thank you. Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost humor interview is deleted?

Hi Barbara! The item at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive 2#Editor Interview has become a redlink. Did you withdraw the interview? Or just move it? I'm confused.☆ Bri (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sort of. That page was blank so I deleted it. Now the editor I'm interviewing seems reluctant to participate. So I guess the interview is cancelled. I need your opinion on something else. I'm serious about it and the references aren't humourous at all but Electrical disruptions caused by mylar balloons has many, many sources. What do you think? Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 17:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update on humour; I'll adjust the newsroom items accordingly.
Do you think there are enough refs for balloons as a standalone? Or maybe a new thing on disruptions caused by all sorts of things, which could link to the squirrels article? I discovered with List of cannabis hoaxes that it's much easier to put lightly-referenced stuff in a list or overview type article. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

About those tasty maggots....

You might be interested in the lyrics to "El Futuro es Nuestro" by Residente referencing the future of food. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mud pie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pebbles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Rigor

Hi Barbara. I'd like you to avoid psychology, biology (including microbiology) and medicine (and anything, really, involving health) in the mainspace of all Wikimedia projects for the time being, until I've seen a robust, sustained pattern of rigorous editing in other topics; perfection, actually: never leaving an edit with typo's or unclear expression, never leaving content that is not supported by the very best sources, never clicking "publish" in mainspace until you are certain you have fully mastered the meaning of the source, always rewriting (completely paraphrasing) the source in your own words (avoiding "close paraphrasing").

I also share SandyGeorgia's concerns about translation and would rather you left that behind. I, personally see no merit in translating unreliable English medical articles into other - especially "Third World" - languages.

And I'd like us to read through some policies and guidelines together to be sure we've both got our heads around their letter and spirit. I'm thinking WP:V, WP:MEDRS (which includes MEDDATE), WP:PRESERVE, and probably some others. It's years since I read them through.

As far as article talk pages go, I believe you need to completely remove snark and irony from your repertoire and only engage in polite, on-topic, professional discourse at all times. The same applies to user talk pages, too, unless the person you're dealing with is an old friend.

How do you feel about the above? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I understand. And if I have a doubt, will ask for clarification. Your recommendations for reading are something that I can use to improve my editing. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Cool. I'm nodding off now. Let's talk this evening your time/tomorrow morning my time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm just about to ring you but I'll pop this here for the record: How do you feel about not interacting with or mentioning Flyer22 for 4 months? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. That will be good. Thank you, Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) – Hi, Anthonyhcole. Typos is not possessive. LOL. Just sayin'. Be safe. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Typo' is, though, an abbreviation of typographical error, I think, and I usually add an apostrophe to abbreviations. (I wish WP had emojis. I'd deploy the triumphal Cossack dance emoji right here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Humble apologies

Hi, Barbara. My apologies for mucking with your humour article. Feel free to undo any of my faux pauxes. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Muck away! I'm pretty sure the article benefited from your contribution. Thanks for visiting my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 04:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My mail

As there is an EMAIL tab on your page I chose to write a mail to you on an issue that needed space and some confidentiality. I understand that answering the mail may compromise your identity. So, you may or may not answer the mail, but you may communicate to me here on this platform. But what I expect most is your intervention as requested in my mail and your action on the issue I have reported to you. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. I will read it thoughtfully. Don't worry about my identity, I am pretty open about it. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 04:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was really a bit worried. Will wait for further developments. Best regards, Devadatta Joardar (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mud pie

Hello! Your submission of Mud pie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sushi pedantry

Countdown to the first comment on Spam sushi should be called "musubi" starting now ... note I am not saying we should change it. The alliteration makes it correct in my book. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You sound like you know more about the topic than I do. I love sushi but take special care to never ask what I am eating. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

New project, old message

Hey! So I might finally have the chance to work on what we previously talked about. Let me know if you are still interested!----ZiaLater (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, just take a look at Violence against women in the United States.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder! How shall we/I go about it, exactly? I have the uncanny ability of irritating other editors and don't want to do this again in this effort. I'll start my reading and gathering of references. May I email you? Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, email is fine, though I prefer the talk page as I will respond faster. Edit the article however you like. With your background, I'm sure it will be fine.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Community topic ban

By consensus of the community, as determined here, you – Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs) – are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles, and you are also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN). Sandstein 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For info

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is to inform you that your sanction has been amended as proposed above. Sandstein 08:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork and Sandstein, Barbara (WVS) is currently editing the Violence against women in the United States article. But I don't see how this falls outside of "topic-banned from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed." I would ask Barbara (WVS) here why she feels it's outside of her topic ban, but she is also banned from interacting with me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this and have spoken with Barbara. I agree this falls under her topic ban and Barbara won't be editing the article going forward. I've explained that, though she was mostly adding statistics about incidence and prevalence in native American and immigrant communities, since the overall topic is health-related, it should be avoided. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Appreciated, Anthonyhcole. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The community has a tolerance for people being unsure of the boundaries of a topic ban, and for making a mistake. However that tolerance is not limitless, so if unsure it is better to ask first. In this case, given that the first sentence contains the words rape, sex-trafficking, and health, and there are sections on Rape and Sexual assault, and the talkpage is tagged WikiProject Women's Health, and that Barbara edited that talkpage to discuss rape: [23], this is a mistake it is hard to overlook. As such it is only fair to warn Barbara that another mistake of this nature will likely result in a block. SilkTork (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 23: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday May 23, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street
(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You are also invited to Action = History: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for Asian American Literature on Sunday May 27!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Template:Did you know nominations/Signaling of the New York City Subway

Barbara, are you planning to return to finish your review here? If not, please let me know and I'll call for a new reviewer; otherwise, I'll look for a post on the nomination page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Barbara (WVS), thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

ScienceSource funded

The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

A medical canon?

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

Links

OpenRefine logo, courtesy of Google
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monarch butterfly migration

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monarch butterfly migration you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My time will limited for the next few weeks because of an upcoming job relocation. I won't have large blocks of time for about three weeks. During the small amounts of time I have, I can do is go through the references, making sure they are correct, edit prose if necessary and remove uncited content. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)/Archive_3"