User talk:The Interior

Archives

/Archive 1 * /Archive 2 * /Archive 3 * /Archive 4 * /Archive 5 * /Archive 6 * /Archive 7 * /Archive 8 * /Archive 9 * /Archive 10 * /Archive 11 * /Archive 12 * /Archive 13 * /Archive 14

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

On 21 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bear (novel), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Marian Engel's 1976 novel Bear has been called "the most controversial novel ever written in Canada"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bear (novel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note over at signpost suggestions. FWIW, my dad is from Telkwa, near Smithers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I've got cousins working up there. Haven't visited myself - been as far west as Houston, and to Prince Rupert, but not between. Have you spent much time up there? It's nice country. You should ask your dad if he has any photos - the article needs one! The Interior (Talk) 02:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Im in round one of the approved accounts and I havent recived any email. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav Nachtailer, that's no good. You're definitely on the list. Check your spam/junk folder, but I will email JSTOR about your account first thing Monday morning. The Interior (Talk) 18:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it, its not there either. Thank you for helping me. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any news? Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in your part of the world but I traveled somewhat nearby in August 2013. I finally got around to uploading the images now and I see that I have photographs from some tiny communities which don't have articles yet on the stretch of BC95 that I took from the US border to Golden, BC. I'm wondering if you would be willing to start articles for Parson, Castledale and Brisco, BC? The way that municipalities are organized in your part of the world is very different than it is around here. Royalbroil 04:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parso, Castledale and Brisco, like several hundred other places, aren't municipalities. Not sure what your pics are of, exactly, but that area is called the East Kootenay and has a Wikimedia Commons category: here. Only three items in it. From Columbia Lake northwards to Golden, while still part of the East Kootenay, that area is called the Columbia Valley. Your pics may fit in Kootenays (there is no separate East Kootenay article) or Columbia Valley or if of mountains, Purcell Mountains or Canadian Rockies.Skookum1 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starter stubs can be begun with information found on the BC Names Office search page. See also List of settlements in British Columbia, which redirects somewhere now, maybe List of communities in British Columbia. There are different categories of locations, and municipalities are relatively few and far between in BC history, other than regional districts; many places were company towns, or just ranches or homesteads that have placenames i.e. are places.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! It has been very helpful. I didn't understand the precise wording of community names in your area. I visited the upper corner of the United States (Maine) last year and communities are organized very differently there too - if a community is named Plymouth then there's often a East Plymouth and Plymouth Notch nearby. I put up an article (with images) at Brisco, British Columbia and I want to work on Castledale, British Columbia / Parson, British Columbia next. Royalbroil 02:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

situations like Plymouth do occur in BC e.g. West/North Vancouver, or Kelowna/West Kelowna but generally they're rare; often there are places that share the same name, or formerly did, very far apart e.g. Fraser Mills/Lamming Mills; many are named for settlers or postmaster, sometimes re railway-based names they're for company managers or investors, or concocted by realty developers past and present.....there's no consistent pattern, and many aren't in BC Names, also.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royalbroil, thanks for starting those, I can add some info over the weekend. (sorry for the late reply, very busy). Our jurisdictions are confusing even to us - we have various administrative divisions for forestry, wildlife, fisheries, electoral areas, regional districts, municipalities, unincorporated settlements, non-official metro areas, Indian reserves, even "resort municipalities"! Many which overlap. It's great! The Wild West of geography. The Interior (Talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2]. keyboard wifi key missing, will inbox you.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1, as I've said before, I've become really concerned about your entanglement with WhisperToMe. I have read the discussions, and, to be honest, I find many of your positions overblown, and some even cruel (i.e. your scathing critiques on grammar and very granular local detail). What's the end game here? If you honestly feel that WtM has competence issues (which I'm not sure of at all), you need to get consensus for that, or back off a bit. Otherwise, it will come down to sanctions. Is it not possible to let go here? The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The constant grammarian
	Thanks for cleaning up the semi-colon at Owney (dog) File:Cordialgreetings1x pix.gif Cheers 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! and thanks. Colon jokes are fundamental! (got a little sad reading about poor Owney's demise, but I guess he had an interesting run of it) The Interior (Talk) 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoyed Owney. While I know I can't "own" it, it is one of my children. Be sure to download the U.S. Postal Service e-book. It's really good! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rees, Jerry; Schwartz, Stephen Michael (2011). "Owney: Tales from the Rails" (E-book). National Postal Museum Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved July 26, 2012. Free children's ebook narrated and sung by Trace Adkins. Free children's ebook narrated and sung by Trace Adkins 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Charming! The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was approved on the first of February this year, yet I haven't received any email since. I guessed it was delay on their part but I want to confirm from you about what's happening. Yes, I have checked the spam folder as well, nothing, no email for JSTOR. If you could help a bit? Ethically^Yours! 15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethically, you are part of the fifth round of applications, which haven't been processed yet by JSTOR. I'll post to WT:JSTOR when the emails go out. Sorry for the long waiting period. The Interior (Talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick.

Don't have your email. Don't know how to message you.

Have written draft of Helga Pakasaar and don't know how to move it to SUBMIT.

You have my biz card. Could you pls call or email me.

thanks Carolyn CeeVanArt (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CeeVanArt, I'll take a look! I'll send you an email so you have mine. The Interior (Talk) 22:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Cripps Kennedy

• ...that Kennedy led a clothing club during the grasshopper plagues?
• ...that The Duchess appealed to Louis Riel?
• ...that after the Sioux forced Kennedy to stay in Manitoba, she imported its second piano?
• ...etc?

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the grasshoppers! The Interior (Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Interior,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the block. You have good judgement. I hope you do not mind that I posted here. It is, if you approve of course, a genuine consideration. It is also a probe. I want to see how he responds to the post. And, if he accepts, and you accept, I would like to see how he conducts himself. Plus, it is a last ditch effort at AGF. By AGF, I mean that really, maybe, the mix of his strong feelings towards certain subjects, and his editing articles on those subjects, causes a chemical reaction and produces a wiki-explosion. Maybe he would be just fine editing less hot subjects. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, Anna, Skookum1 works fine on his own, and when working with people he feels respect him. The problems arise when someone disagrees with him. I don't believe it's topic related so much as related to clashes of personalities. (I've watched him get in fights over things as charged as federal elections, and as tame and apolitical as rivers). But, if you are willing to work with him, I have no problem with that at all. I think you have good judgement as well :) However, I think it's very important that he not engage with WhisperToMe at all in the future. That dynamic is thoroughly poisoned, IMO. Best, The Interior (Talk) 14:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend. :) So, not the topic, but rather interaction means risk of clashing. Okay. I agree. Points:

• Wikipedia is usually all about interaction.
• Skookum can only exist here as a lone wolf.
• Some types of editing mean seldom crossing paths with others.
• Blocks are preventative. We cannot punish him for his attacks. We just want him to stop.
• All agree that when the block expires, small chance he will change his ways.
• Some call for indef.
• We have nothing to lose now, but a possible gain -- a long shot. I like long shots. Ninety percent of the time, we have to click a button and call it a loss. Ten percent of the time, Wikipedia makes out nicely. Risk of failure, but at no cost.

So, instead of a block, maybe we should consider offering: Block lifted. He agrees to become a lone wolf. He can dig up images, add infoboxes, format per MOS, add categories, etc. Heck, there are plenty of editors who build this thing with little or no interaction with others. If he cannot help himself, and gets into even one dispute, right or wrong, he's blocked, by me. Period. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, Anna. Usually, there are so few editors working on British Columbia stuff, one couldn't get in a fight if one tried! Talk about tumbleweeds. And it would be great to get more work done on the many articles that need it. But we need to hear from Skookum1. He's been very opposed to working under any restrictions in the past, and, if I recall, took a voluntary break a while ago rather than discuss it. I'd love to have the knowledgeable, helpful, funny Skookum1 back, but, to be honest, I haven't seen that editor in a while. Things have gotten very angry. Things can change too, of course, and I'd be very happy to see it. If he's okay with your suggestions, I certainly am. The Interior (Talk) 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC stuff is indeed tumbleweedy. However, all this may be moot. Skookum's silence is deafening. I do hope he comes back, and as the Skookum we like. I bet he's a really nice person. He's passionate. That's a good thing, as long as it doesn't manifest itself in attacks. All the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a bit worried that we haven't heard from him. BTW, Nice work on the lighthouses list, I see you've got one of my pics in there! I think I have one of two more from the Inside Passage, lemme check the hard drives ... The Interior (Talk) 17:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is none of my business but seeing this editor at ANI so many times over the past two years, this generous offer seems incredibly optimistic. I've never encountered a noncombative Snookum but one who, rather than discussing problems, posts block after block of text, going into repetitive diatribes about the faults of those he objects to. I know he has contributed a lot, content-wise, but he is so easily provoked, I can't see him working on articles without coming into conflict with someone. I think it is admirable though that you are offering him one last, last chance as you are setting up yourselves as his monitors, an unenviable assignment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. Actually, this offer is not optimistic at all. It is realistic: It has a small chance, but carries almost no cost. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your lighthouse image? Wow. Small wikiworld. I'll check to see which one. Nice. I love image contribs. An image really tells the tale. That reminds me. Someone once said: "Small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it." :) And for some reason, all this reminded me of 9 O'Clock Gun. (I like the ESSO part.) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You removed my name from the JSTOR application page with an edit summary that said it was being moved to the approved page, but I don't see my name there. It appears that there may have been an editing mix up with the user above me. Can you tell me what my status is? Thanks! --Briancua (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mine also. There were a number of approved requests that were deleted, instead of being moved to Wikipedia:JSTOR/Approved. So what does this mean? I got no notification and would have never known without searching the request page History. Are we now in limbo? — Maile (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Briancua, — Maile , I distinctly remember saving the approved accounts edit, don't know what happened there. Will fix that. Both of you are approved, and so look for an email this week. Sorry for the confusion, was travelling all day yesterday, and missed the mistake. The Interior (Talk) 17:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure if BrianCUA has gotten anything yet, but I have not. Any idea when it will come? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briancua, I haven't gotten anything, either. Guess the waiting is whenever someone gets around to it. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrianCUA, — Maile , I'll inquire. In the past, it can take longer than expected, but the accounts do come through. I'll do an update for everyone at WT:JSTOR when I hear back. The Interior (Talk) 14:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email from you about a week ago and filled out the form, but still don't have log in information. Any idea how long that takes? Thanks for your help with this. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused too, when can I expect the email? I would wait patiently but I'm concerned that the email will go to Spam or not even arrive and then I'll never know. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeraphine Gryphon, BrianCUA, — Maile , still stuck in limbo, working on it. Communications are bad. :( Jeraphine, I will post to WT:JSTOR when the emails go out. Sorry for the delays. The Interior (Talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, thanks. I can wait patiently now. :p — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All, if you need a specific article while we are waiting, let me know, and I can email it to you. The Interior (Talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Interior, I got your email with the Google sign-up link two weeks ago on April 10, and filled it out immediately. Nothing else has happened. Do you think it will be much longer? — Maile (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• — Maile , really hoped JSTOR would do the mailout out last Friday, but it looks like not. They said they would do so early this week if it didn't happen on Friday. If I don't hear anything by tomorrow, I'll follow up. But it should be very soon. Sorry for the delay, The Interior (Talk) 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks. So far, nothing as of today. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Interior Still nothing. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I got the access just now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the music barnstar! -Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick—I'm listed as having it, No. 55 in the July 2014 tranche. But no email, so I don't know how to get access. Tony (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, sorry to bother you. I finally dug up an email from them. Thanks for organising. Tony (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Tony, glad you sorted it out. Let me know if you have any trouble getting in. The Interior (Talk) 16:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I ever get access? No sign of an email 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy, as far as I can tell, you didn't fill out the email form (may have gotten lost in your spam folder). Can you email me at earleypathotmail.com and I will get your address into the next mailout? The Interior (Talk) 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, email sent Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers, got it. The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy, haven't forgotten about you, you'll be in the next Round, hopefully going out in the next week or two. The Interior (Talk) 20:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sent you a mail, [User:Andy Dingley|Andy]], The Interior (Talk) 18:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were the 105th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! Hope all is well with you! The Interior (Talk) 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"All" would be saying too much, see my talk ;) - but I am fine, stubbornly staying while others give up or are at least frustrated, - had my most successful DYK yesterday, DYK? - How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years ago, you were recipient no. 105 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I talked about Wikipedia Library on GLAM Wiki Conference with Sadad. He told me that you are hosting a conversation about this other spanish wikipedians. In Wikimedia ES we are exploring the possibility of developing Wikipedia Library-ES. We may contact... Tramullas (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Thanks for blocking that IP vandal. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A guy saved by Jesus, no problem! And thank you for the reversions. The Interior (Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest library newsletter mentioned that "We are preparing to have a booth at ALA in San Francisco, host an editathon and give a talk." I live just an hour's drive north of San Francisco, and I've available during all the days (except Sunday) of the conference. I'd be happy to help out with the editathon and/or the booth. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent John! The talk is on the Sunday, so unfortunately you'll miss that. But we've got the Editathon on Friday afternoon at the WMF office, and we'd love to have you on hand at the booth whenever you're available. I'll get you more details as things come together. Look forward to meeting you in person! The Interior (Talk) 23:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I'd love your presence at the Friday editathon and you can also join us Friday evening for the opening gala at the exhibit hall in Moscone center, as well as Saturday at our booth in Moscone. If you want to be a part of that venue I will happily add you as one of the Wikipedia Library exhibitors (you need a badge to enter the exhibit hall). If you're interested in that part of it, will you email me at jorlowitzwikimedia.org with the username you'd like me to register you with (there's no cost, of course). Hope to see you soon! Best, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: Jake - I'm interested in both events on Friday, and helping at the booth on Saturday. I've emailed you, as requested. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was accepted last year, and if my memory serves, I filled out the email form and have login access. My question is, when I want to read certain pages of an article, I am still required to pay for the access, although I have free access to abstracts and searches. Is that how it's supposed to work, or have I done something incorrectly? Atsme☯^Consult 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received access just recently, though a lot, and I mean a LOT, of articles are still behind a paywall. I was so disappointed I thought I'd come back here like, "nevermind, I don't want this, thanks", but looking around more it does seem like I have more access than I did before. Maybe. Not completely sure though what the difference is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeraphine Gryphon, Atsme, first, the bad news - there are two current limitations on the content with JSTOR. The first is the books content, and the second is the "moving wall" of recently published titles. There's a post on JSTOR talk that outlines this, but I should put that on the main page. (will do this weekend once the yard is cleaned up.) The good news is that we are trying to get at least the books content added - talking to JSTOR about that. Atsme, you should be able to access full text for archive journals - one way to be sure you're linked up with the Wikipedia account is to look in the right margin for the "Your access to JSTOR provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation" text. If you are in, one way to avoid abstract-only and restricted results is to select the "Include only content I can access" button in the search window. All that said, there could be an issue with your accounts. Let's test - search "Fraser River" in the advanced search with the "Include only content I can access" button ticked. First result should be "The Fraser River Humbug: Americans and Gold in the British Pacific Northwest", Robert E. Ficken. Let me know whether you can access that full-text. The Interior (Talk) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I don't see anything in the right margin that says "Your access to JSTOR provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation". All I have is login info in a box in the top right corner. I'm allowed to keep up to 3 items on my "shelf" and have to wait 14 days before they can be removed. I'm using the most recent Safari browser on a Mac. Atsme☯^Consult 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The access lasts for one year, did that year pass already? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but it's getting close. Atsme☯^Consult 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts should be good until December 2015, they were just extended. Atsme, it doesn't sound like you are signed in. Search your inbox for the email from JSTOR, and try loggin in using those instructions. If you can't find that email, or your login isn't getting you the Wikipedia access, we'll have to touch base with JSTOR this week and see what the issue is. The Interior (Talk) 20:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TI. I cannot find that email. I did not do a good job archiving last year, but am much better at it now. Atsme☯^Consult 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, my archives are a mess. Will look into your account this week Atsme. The Interior (Talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on. Thank you so much for your help and time. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 22:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Zaldostanov, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Russian biker and political activist Alexander Zaldostanov is a former surgeon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander Zaldostanov. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum has returned from his three month block and started right back up with the same battleground behavior, incivility, personal attacks, and general rudeness, just as before.[3] I think an "unblock" review is called for here to prevent further disruption. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Interior, I appear to have got sanctioned access to Jstor (in round 5, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JSTOR/Round_5_target_list ) Looking forward to using this facility. Please let me know if I need to do something to initiate this process, or just wait. Thanks! fredericknoronha (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know this to. I was approved in January 2015 but since haven't received an email with information about how to access it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fredericknoronha, working on it! We've had a bit of a hold-up. You should get a JSTOR email within the next two weeks or so (I'm trying to recycle old, unused accounts as we're at our limit, but it's taking a while - but Round 5 people will definitely get theirs). Liz! I'm sure we mailed one out to you in the early spring, you're on the confirmed list. Maybe search your inbox? If not, let me know, and I'll get you in with this next group. The Interior (Talk) 13:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very muchThe Interior, really appreciate the work you guys put in.fredericknoronha (talk)

I've been told to check my spam folder but I clean that out at least once a week so if was there, it is no longer. But I have some email filters and I'll see if it got sent to one of my Wikipedia mailing list folders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, try this - Go to https://www.jstor.org/action/myJstorSettings

1. Complete the required fields to register a username and password.
2. Click 'Submit' to complete your registration.

Might just work that way, as your email is on file. The Interior (Talk) 14:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it...I actually found the original email message! I thought it might have come in January or February but it was December, hence my fruitless efforts to go back into all of these email folders, looking for it. The JSTOR page said I was already registered (it had my email address already) so I'll have to look into it and make sure it's a WikiMedia account and not an account from when I was in graduate school. I'll let you know if I have any problems. Thanks for all of the work you do! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The InteriorAnytime you could help, I'd really be grateful. Sorry to badger, but am working on this page currently and am stuck for suitable references to build and introduction to the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poets_in_(and_from)_Goa fredericknoronha (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fredericknoronha, sorry for the no reply - I have been travelling. Will see if I can find some sources for you, I'll drop by your talk if I find something good. JSTOR accounts should be ready within 10-15 days. The Interior (Talk) 16:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Interior Just a polite reminder.... pls see when this might be possible. Am working on some pages of Konkani litterateurs from Goa, and this could really help. Thank you! fredericknoronha (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Interior, nice to talk with you. Maybe you can help me. My application for JSTOR was approved on 21 february, I received the mail on 11 april and immediately I filled the Google form. But I don't have the email with the access information yet. Should I wait a little more or is there something wrong? Thanks. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falconaumanni, we're still hung up recycling accounts (very sorry this is taking longer than I hoped). You are on the list for the next mailout. I really hope to get this sorted by the end of the month, so hang in there. :( The Interior (Talk) 22:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had done something wrong :P. I will wait as long as it's necessary. Thanks for your work and thanks for spending time helping us.-Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 09:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear The Interior, tnx for starting dialogue today by email according my JSTOR account. Indeed, since a year or so I do not have access anymore, reason unknown. I went 3 or 4 times through this registration process, but none of the logins will be accepted.

Yes, I want to keep my account. - But how? Maybe we should start from scratch: New login Name new login Password provided by JSTOR themselves or by WMF. I would kiss shoes if necessary :-).

Kindly yours, --Emeritus (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus, sent you a mail on this, let me know if it works for you. The Interior (Talk) 22:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye to Language, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Was wondering if you'd be willing to look over the articles recent GA review and possibly comment on it. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior 15:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a JSTOR account through the Wikipedia library. I find that I don't make frequent use of it. If helpful, I would like to relinquish the account to someone else who could make better use of it. My JSTOR username is kvngrss. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, thanks so much for being proactive, I'll let JSTOR know. This will give me one more account to get to a new applicant. Best, The Interior (Talk) 16:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For now I have something else I'm working on. But I will let you know. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Interior!

We talked at Wikimania about meeting up sometime in the next two weeks in Vancouver, maybe with some other Wikipedians. Do you still have time for that? Next week would be ideal. Cheers! Braveheart (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (aka Philip)[reply]

Braveheart, let's see what we can do. I'm fighting off a cold today, but let's chat tomorrow and see if we can get some folks together. The downtown library has meeting rooms we can book for 2 hours - might be a good location. The Interior (Talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Get well soon, maybe we can arrange a meetup on Wednesday? Braveheart (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Saturday would work too, I'm a bit busy on Thursday and Friday... Braveheart (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's going to have to be Saturday. Busy week, and still trying to get over this cold. What time would work for you? I could get down to the library by about 10- 10:30 and book a meeting room (you can only book them in person and for that day). The Interior (Talk) 00:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(butting into this conversation) Won't we supposed to talk this month, Interior? I forgot until I saw your talk page on my Watchlist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz! We definitely were! Wikimania happened, and then I got sick. But on the recovery. When would be a good time for you? The Interior (Talk) 00:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya - anytime on Saturday, haven't planned anything yet - whenever it suits you guys best! :-) Braveheart (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we just set a time for Saturday, say 11 AM at the library, and see who shows up? Braveheart (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Braveheart, let's do that. I'll get there at opening, and book a meeting spot. I'll send you a mail with my cell number just in case. Quiddity, Jon, you guys interested? We should post to WikiProject Vancouver too. The Interior (Talk) 00:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to, but I have plans for the next few weekends (outdoors! and DIY stuffs). Please do ping me for the next one though. :) Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoors? Has this account been compromised? The Interior (Talk) 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me, am on the plane to Chile right now. And then when I get back, I'm off to Hawaii. It's a tough life. Back August 22. Happy to meet up thereafter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have talked with 2 trekkers about your active interest in Wikipedia Treks Mountains project. They will contact you in near future for possible collaboration. Thanks for your kind help in Wikimania 2015. Take care. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattwa, wonderful! I will do more postings about the project here on en.wiki this week. It was great to meet you in Mexico! The Interior (Talk) 15:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a team from West Bengal recently went for a high altitude trek to Kalindi Khal pass in Garhwal Himalayas under the Wikipedia treks Kalindi Khal project. They asked for grants from WMF and to my utter surprise, it was approved. I think, it was a hasty and rather immature decision to request for grant from the foundation. There were many valid and embarrassing questions from other users showing the loop holes of the Wikipedia treks Mountains project. Now, to my opinion, we need to questions carefully and act accordingly to turn it into a full-proof project for future endeavors. Regards. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattwa, great progress and congratulations to the Kalindi Khal team on the Grant! (I don't feel it was an hasty decision to apply early - sometimes the only way to work out problems is to get things going!) I am very happy to hear about the Kalindi Khal trek, and look forward to seeing the images. Are you going on this trek? The Interior (Talk) 17:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to some personal problems, I had to leave my plan for the trek. May be next year. :-) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattwa, that is sad to hear. I hope the problems are being solved :( Maybe next year I can join in! The Interior (Talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trans Am Totem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Trans Am Totem (pictured), a sculpture in Vancouver, Canada, incorporates both a Pontiac Trans Am and a cedar tree? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trans Am Totem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Willy Mitchell 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! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Willy Mitchell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Willy Mitchell used money awarded to him after being shot in the head by a police officer to buy an electric guitar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Willy Mitchell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Churn Creek Protected Area, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Churn Creek Protected Area in British Columbia has hoodoos and flammulated owls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Churn Creek Protected Area. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just following up with the Reconciliation Canada article. I was wondering if you needed any more information or had any questions?Jpvancouver15 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you're here, and I wanted to say, Welcome. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.--ragesoss (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally!  :) :) :) The Interior (Talk) 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an anon changing (with poor capitalization) the Thomas Mulcair article to show Justin Trudeau as PM. Although he has won, Harper remains PM until the results are officially confirmed (and perhaps even for some time thereafter). You may want to police that article and possibly may need to lock it down temporarily. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) He may be too busy celebrating to respond immediately...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it today. In the interests of staying neutral, I'll just say this about last night - I'm glad we got out and voted. 70% participation is beautiful! The Interior (Talk) 16:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral is so vanilla; it's the taupe of adjectives! That being said, the turn-out was fantastic.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla is so yummy though! My lefty cousins in the Kootenays were all out volunteering registering voters - got their participation rate in their riding up to 75%! The Interior (Talk) 16:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's A Fact: I made ghee whiz popcorn the other day. I'll take a pic next time and send it to you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This I need to see! TBH, my version didn't get the blending I desired. Sort of stratified on me. The Interior (Talk) 23:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pop the popcorn in the ghee, then toss with half ghee/half butter topping. Finally, drizzle with Cheez Whiz (ha ha! Spellcheck thinks Cheez isn't a word! Apparently spellcheck has never eaten in a University res cafeteria). It ends up a bit clumpy, but the million calorie intake and insulin spike makes the clumps irrelevant.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have now tried your method. Had to get new ghee, mine had gone a bit cloudy on me. This is definitely the better approach. It's odd that the whiz really won't mix well with other oils - it's pretty much all oil! But it worked nicely, if a bit clumpy as you say. I even went for a fusion trifecta - added a bit of powdered salsa (yes, it's a real thing) to the butter/ghee - not bad, I must say. We should document this on the Internet or something. The Interior (Talk) 16:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the books that I requested from McFarland were delivered to me by email. They look excellent, and I have already used some of them to add material to Wikipedia articles. I have had a problem with the remaining book, "Radio Stars" by Thomas A. Delong, however.

Kristal Hamby, Advertising Coordinator at McFarland, wrote me that the PDF file was too large to send as an attachment to email. Instead, she sent me a link to an FTP page from which I could download the file. That, in itself, was not a problem. The download went fine. Unfortunately, when I opened the downloaded file, the type was so blurred as to be illegible.

I wrote to Ms. Hamby asking if she could look into the situation and perhaps arrange for another PDF to be made available for downloading. For some reason, however, my message was returned with the comment, "Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently." I tried writing to her again but received a similar response.

I realize that this is probably beyond your purview as coordinator of allocating books from McFarland, but I wondered if perhaps you know someone at the company who could help with the PDF problem. If you can give me a name and an email address or telephone number, I will be glad to make the inquiry. I'm sure you are already busy enough without having my problem added to your list of things to do.

I will appreciate any help that you can give. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Blick, I'll pass this on to my contact at McFarland today, and see if they have any advice. I'll update you when I hear back. The Interior (Talk) 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate that.Eddie Blick (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	We couldn't have done it without you
	Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homemade mac and cheese cooked until crispy in individual ramekins, topped with duck confit. Quack and cheese. Boom! extends arm. drops mic.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MenomenaMomsCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Fisk&curid=51608&diff=697040762&oldid=697039301

First of all one of the sources was not a blog, but a book review published in The Guardian

Secondly Blogs are reliable sources if published by experts in the field- such as Brian Whitaker who is a credentialed journalist at The Guardian, and As'ad AbuKhalil who is a Lebanese political scientist and analyst and has been invited many times on different news stations to be interviewed.Rajmaan (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rajmaan. Could you please read the sentences directly following the one you have quoted, especially this one: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." That is pretty clear. As for the book review, it would make a good source for an article on the book in question, but not to make assertions in the biography. This conversation would be better on Talk:Robert Fisk, though - I'd ask you to take it there if you would like to continue. The Interior (Talk) 21:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I haven't been very active for some time, but still pop in now and then. You got Rivers of North America? How nice! I assume it's as much of a tome as it looked to be. On the Thompson River pages, well, I'm not sure. It's a general issue that happens a lot on many river pages. I think I'm the one who made the South and North Thompson pages into actual pages instead of redirects. And I think the main reason I wanted to was so they could have their own geoboxes with stats specific to them at the top of the page. Oh, and so each would have a coordinate locator at the top—so they would show up in things like Google Earth and Maps—though Google Maps removed the Wikipedia links long ago, didn't they? Still, I think there are various sites and tools that use the page-top coordinates to link to pages, generate lists, make maps, etc.

In short, I'm not sure what the best solution is. I guess some river tributaries obviously deserve their own pages while others are not so clear. An example somewhat similar to this one is the Flathead River. I think originally I had the three or four forks as subsections on one page, then Shannon1 made separate pages for them. Then there are difficult things where famous rivers join to form a shorter, less famous river, like the Apalachicola River and the Chattahoochee River. In my area, I could never quite figure out what to do with the Snohomish River, which is among the biggest rivers flowing into Puget Sound near me, but people are generally at least as familiar with the names of its tributaries Snoqualmie (which itself has well-known forks) and Skykomish.

So yea, I don't know what's best. I tended to err on the side of more pages, although that creates the challenge of making some kind of summary/overview for the main stem necessary. I think I had planned to write an overview for the Snohomish River page, but never got around to it. Merry and happy to you and yours too! Pfly (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, can you help me please by moving Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Missing municipalities over the redirect to Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Missing municipalities? This started when I moved Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Missing municipalities to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Missing Indian reserves and the associated talk page before I realized there was one thread on the talk page that was more appropriate to leave behind. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you delete the Canaan No. 255, Saskatchewan that I created by accident? It should have been 225 instead of 255. Hwy43 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43,  Done. Hope you are having a happy new year, The Interior (Talk) 02:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, and hope you are having the same as well! Hwy43 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the error page Rivier Des Roches.Spidersmilk (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Spidersmilk! The Interior (Talk) 01:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the correctly spelled page I created for the Alberta river: Rivière des RochersSpidersmilk (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Spidersmilk, I'll try to help out. But I'm focusing on the Thompson River for now! The Interior (Talk) 02:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just signed up for a new university course so now have access via their library to JSTOR. Therefore, please remove my Wikipedia sponsored JSTOR access and give it to someone else - thanks! QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know, QuiteUnusual. I'll try to get your account passed on to one of the waitlisted people. Best, The Interior (Talk) 15:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup, we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the worldwide virtual online event hosted by Women in Red. March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Interior. Is there a typo and grammar issue here? I do not understand this sentence:

Designed to streamline and standardize how archives are cited in Wikipedia, the template can support a variety of uses, from simply citing a finding aid, to specifying folders, fonds, files and more.

Nice work. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax! Does this edit make it a bit more clear? I was trying to convey that the template supports a wide variety of archival terminology/standards used around the world (there is significant regional variation). The Interior (Talk) 20:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If what you suspected to be a typo is fonds, then no, it’s a “term of art” in the archiving business.—Odysseus1479 21:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Interior. That flows much better for my non-archivists mind. I wikilinked fonds so nobody will be likely to change it to fonts. Cheers! cc to: Odysseus1479 {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Fan For You![edit]

		Fan!
		{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot Wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "WikiCheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze. To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

~~~~

Spidersmilk (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this message to you because you put yourself down as a regular admin at DYK.

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

--Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your oddities page is amazing. Iazyges (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am having some worries and frustrations right now with the DYK nomination process--I have nominated the article I recently did a big expansion on and helped push to GA, the Wrecking Crew (music). Let me explain: After nominating that article, and in accordance with the DYK guidelines, I did my part and reviewed another article nominated for DYK, Gustaf Nyström. When picking an article to do a review on, I wanted to select one that I felt was a viable candidate. I had seen a bunch of articles nominated that I did't think I could approve in good conscience, so passed them up--I didn't want to be the bad guy to have to say "no". Whereas, the Gustaf Nyström piece seemed have good potential for DYK. I felt it needed a few extra things, so, in my review I mentioned that it needed more sources (at the time it only had two) and more in-line citations. Another editor, EEng, stepped in and, in a not-so-kind way, told me that two is enough. While taken somewhat aback by his tone and seeming lack of concern for the betterment of the article, I kindly told him that I am not as familiar with the DYK process (I have only done one nomination previously). I generously admitted to him that his point was probably correct, but that my personal feeling was that, since the article is going to be showcased on the front page of Wikipedia, we wanted to make it look extra-good--that was why I asked for more sources. The author of the article initially was very thankful and complimented me for my constructive remarks, but EEng's subsequent comments caused him to become critical of my initial advice. This got me a bit miffed, because, my only intention had been to help him out. I made a remark that I felt that we should be focusing on the betterment of the article, not the "more than two" request--that issue had already been satisfactorily addressed. But, I now felt that my role as a reviewer was being disrespected. I went ahead and approved his article anyway for DYK, because I believe in being fair. But, it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. And, I regarded EEng's comments as not only lecuring and rude, but also counter-productive and even downright disruptive to the process. I had no intention of walking into a hostile situation, but that is exactly what I got.

And, now I am now concerned about the Wrecking Crew article I nominated and its DYK chances. It has been languishing a long time on the nomination page and no one has yet reviewed it. I worry that an unfair editor may get their hands on it and try to sink it--I ask that EEng not be allowed to do the come near my nomination--I need people that will be fair. I worked really hard on the article--I did a massive expansion and helped get it up to GA. I would have thought that a hundred people would be waiting in line to nominate it, or at least review it. I have written over 150 articles and if you look at them, they are of consistently good quality--but I have reserved only two large-scale projects (Garage rock and the Wrecking Crew) for DYK nomination, so no one can say that I am encumbering the DYK page with excessive requests. After my expansion (and GA) of the Garage rock article last year, its DYK process was equally frustrating, though it did eventually go DYK. After its DYK review passed, it sat around forever before it got in the queue--I had to watch all of the more recent and smaller articles pass it by--I ended up having to write a message to the editors begging them to get it onto the queue. There has to be a better way than this for editors who finish big projects. I ask for someone's kind understanding. When you've worked hard as I have to make Wikipedia a better place, stuff like this seems like a slap in the face. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to Wehwalt and expressed the same concern. He indicated that he would do help me and do the DYK review. I thank both of you for your kindness. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi, quick question, I subscribed for the newsletter but have not received it, when exactly is the next one due? thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This week. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Interior.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Interior,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I just signed on to the waitlist for JSTOR access and noticed that the last time an account had been activated was in June of this year. I am curious if the project allowing for JSTOR access is still active or if it has become defunct since it has been so long that new members for the project have been approved. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, VinceLeibowitz. I'm not directly involved in the accounts dispersal anymore (and really should take my name down!), but the situation last time I was working with them is that we have a "cap" of 500 accounts, and folks are waitlisted until the JSTOR and the TWL team does a review of unused accounts, then transfers inactive ones to to waitlistees. Which can take some time, but does happen. They are very popular accounts. However, Nikkimaria might have more details ... The Interior (Talk) 23:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're at the cap so there aren't presently any accounts available - there might be more in the new year. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To: The Interior, Neelix, Niikkimaria, Amqui

I have some familiarity with our GLAM and Wikipedians in Residence initiatives, but I have not been closely involved with either project.

I am an OTRS agent and field in an email from an individual associated with the government of Nova Scotia. They are interested in working closely with Wikipedia particularly regarding cultural history issues.

I have already shared links to our COI policy, to the GLAM initiative Wikipedia:GLAM, and to the WiR page (https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence)

They have responded with interest in pursuing this and I promise to help put them in touch with someone. As you may know, I cannot share the contents of OTRS emails without permission but they have given me permission. If you happen to be an OTRS agent see: ticket:2016121310018191

If not, let me know and I will copy the email.

I see this as a potential exciting new initiative. While we have many examples of Wikipedians in Residence, I do not see any that are representatives of a provincial government, so this may be breaking exciting new ground.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see User_talk:Amqui#Nova_Scotia.2C_GLAM_and_WiR--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week<