User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:00, 11 January 2021

This user is not to be confused with User:Coffee and User:CoffeeCrumbs, who are entirely different users. Please do not use the name Coffee to refer to this user as it is ambiguous. You can use C&C.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coffeeandcrumbs.

This user makes women green.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Women in Red (redlinks→blue)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

DYK 1 ITN 1 FP 1 Rights 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

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

No RfXs since 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Welcome!

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

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

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

A cupcake for you!

Welcome to the Wiki Portals project! Serenesage (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Women Disobey

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

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

Million award

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Yoninah, thank you for my first barnstar ever! And thank you for your patient and diligent assistance in getting this going. I should say that just as much credit should go to User:Kees08 without whom this would never have been possible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a special thanks to Cwmhiraeth. Your act of bravery did not go unnoticed!!! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main page compliment

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

I agree completely. Great job with the Main page coverage of the 50th anniversary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the chorus: quality job on that project! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, it was a great way to celebrate the anniversary. Step hen 23:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Especially since you never voted in an RfA before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your help! Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2019. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

You have been made a hero of Wikipedia labour!

	For your service to the motherland
	For creating Soviet space engineer Konstantin Bushuyev, you have been awarded a Hero of Wikipedia Labour! Now both you and Bushuyev can have matching awards. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, this is the best. Thanks! Our coverage of the soviet space programme needs so much improvement. You should join us at Alexei Leonov as we work towards GA. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

Quarter Million Award for Valentina Tereshkova

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

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

Barnstar for you

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

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

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

barnstar

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

This is Coffeeandcrumbs's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 180 days

ITN recognition for Chi Chi DeVayne

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

Powel

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

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

Congrads bty. Am delighted and it is well deserved. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Venicescapes (not coordinated with above)

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

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

Venicescapes, I would like to continue if possible. Do you have further comments? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I respect your wishes and will add my support on the basis of those aspects that I was able to review. Again, I can't testify as to the sources. At present, I don't have other comments. Best wishes for your success.Venicescapes (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, please indicate your support on the FAC whenever you are comfortable doing so. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably be able to get to it tomorrow. If at any point you need assistance or have questions, feel free to ask.Venicescapes (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other tangentially related commentary

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

GreenMeansGo, I agree. Anyway the review ends, I am happy with what resulted. In hindsight, the article probably needed more development before bringing to FAC. I have learned a valuable lesson. What do you think should be our next step? I've kinda lost track what more we should do to respond to comments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's gotten a bit hard to track. We may have fared better if we had gone to WP:GCE first maybe. I am not convinced, but had considered we should get up with Sam, get with GCE, look it over a bit, and try a second nom. Maybe we should ask one of the FAC coordinators what their opinion is? I've only ever done one FA. So I'm hardly an expert. GMG ^talk 21:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, as Venicescapes suggests above, it maybe smart to withdraw the nom and invite Venicescapes, Tagishsimon, and Sam (if she is available) to the talk page for further review for comprehensiveness. Once that is handled, we could ask GCE for a copy edit. However, I have heard rumors that some at GCE do more harm than good. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe the others you've pinged have opinions. I dunno. I'm...maybe a bit MacArthur at times in my use of archaic language and maybe that's caused part of the issue. GMG ^talk 22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

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

Picture of the day

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

Cwmhiraeth, I put them together. I think with two images that is better. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that looks good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

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

Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

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

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

September

September
Dahlias in Walsdorf

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

RM

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

Valereee, no. This has been such a contentious subject for so long that it is better to be cautious. While it seems obvious to me, some editors have argue over and over again to keep these "Shooting of .." titles despite the title's pro-police connotations and perhaps racist undertones. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly not a wrong move to open a discussion. :) —valereee (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, told you so. This is what I am talking about. Police are special. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or Black people aren't. Those two categories, compared, ought to be enough for a sitewide RfC on what terms we use, as we clearly need set policy. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I created File:Death or Killing or Murder.svg with that in mind. But when I told some people about it, they got bogged down in the minutiae. They sought perfection, the enemy of good. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's great, but maybe it's trying to do too much. —valereee (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, that is what I meant by people got bogged down in minutiae. The original version, before people asked for changes, was much simpler. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to narrow the focus to deaths in police custody and keep it there. IMO, this is a racism issue, not a MOS issue. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, thank so much!!! for finally seeing what I have been railing about for the past year. I have come close to quitting Wikipedia over this issue. I was furious two days ago when I saw "fatal shooting" at DYK. Hence, why I broke my own rule and created a user page for myself. I am in tears. It feels so good for someone else to see it for what it is: racial bias. Racial bias on Wikipedia manifesting in such a prominent place, the title of articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that the bias on the project has caused you pain. I just wanted to say that I expect your user page to receive pushback, one day, so I wanted to just alert you to that. It may not be today or tomorrow but eventually, some editor will see the page and will see it as polemic and not valid criticism. Thanks for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for the kind words, and gentle and genteel criticism. I have made a small change to it to ensure that people realize it is an "essay[], perspective[], personal philosophy, [or] comment[] on Wikipedia matters" as allowed by WP:UPGOOD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYP as source and more

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of Google's Ngram facility

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

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

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

Also beware of one year changes - look at Ngram for British English 2014-2019. The message there appears to be that in 2018 Kyiv was nearly as popular as Kiev, but lost its popularity in 2019. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1, I wonder if Google Ngram accounts for reprints. When a 2010 book is reprinted in 2014 and 2019, does it count appearances in all three? Because this would have a huge effect in slowing down a change. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have investigated this question. I think @TaivoLinguist: might also be interested.

I did a search on Google Books for "Midshipman Easy",[1] and it shows a year for each. As far as I know, there has only ever been one book called "Midshipman Easy" (published in 1836 and still in print). The year shown will be the year used by Ngram. I needed a book to compare it with and chose "The Price of Blood"; I was thinking of Semenov's 1910 book, but it turns out that many books have that title.[2]

I next did an Ngram comparing "Midshipman Easy" with "The Price of Blood".[3] Try pressing the "case insensitive button" (on is blue, off is white); it massively changes the graphs.

When case sensitive with smoothing 0, Nrram produces a value of 15142 for "Midshipman Easy" for 1800, which seemed implausible because the book was published in 1836. So I did a search on Google Books for "Midshipman Easy" with the date range set as 1 January 1800 to 1 January 1801.[4]

Some of the Google Books hits (like this one) are genuine in the sense that it was published in 1800, and the words "midshipman" and "easy" appear on the same page (though not together). Since this example shows them not capitalised, it should not appear in a cases-sensitive Ngram for "Midshipman Easy".
Some of the Google Books hits are for books with wrong metadata on the date.[5][6] These are books that talk about or list other books, and hence have "Midshipman Easy" capitalised.

So the answer to your question is that a book with three editions with different dates will probably be treated as three books with separate dates.

From the point of view of someone programming a tool like Ngram, it is not easy to decide whether it should or not. People today are still buying (and presumably reading) new copies of "Midshipman Easy", so in a very real sense its words are still current, even though it was first published 184 years ago. And yet they were written all that time ago.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Culture bound ideas and terms

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

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

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

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

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

Zezen, I bet every time a person wrote one of those 10000+ books, each book itself changed the meaning of the hexagram. Just how the overuse of the journalese phrase "rioting and mayhem" changed the meaning of mayhem. Mayhem used to mean "the intentional maiming of another person". Now, we understand it to mean almost the same thing as "chaos". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed:

From Middle English mayme, mahaime, from Anglo-Norman mahaim (“mutilation”), from Old French mahaign (“bodily harm, loss of limb”), from Proto-Germanic *maidijaną (“to cripple, injure”) (compare Middle High German meidem, meiden (“gelding”), Old Norse meiða (“to injure”), Gothic 𐌼𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌾𐌰𐌽 (maidjan, “to alter, falsify”)), from Proto-Indo-European *mey- (“to change”). More at mad. The original meaning referred to the crime of maiming, the other senses derived from this.

Meaning #1 may have arisen by popular misunderstanding of the common journalese expression "rioting and mayhem".

Still, it is not as charged or pernicious as e.g. "homophobia", instead of aversion to homosexuality (got good RSes for that claim). Or good ol' "fasciscm" already meaningless in the 1940s, see Orwell's article about the same: https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc etc.

Newspeak is much worse. Myself I lived in a "republican and people" country, this term in its very name, for 18 years, with anti-societal one-party system and eternal love to a semi-neighbouring country in its constitution (not kidding). Or think of this country, so uber-democratic that democracy is also in its name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Could be much worse.

Bows,

Zezen (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zezen, why is this a redlink Republican and People’s Republic of China? Is the official name at China wrong? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request for comment regarding clerking duties on Talk:Kiev

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

Homespun movement

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

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

Thank you! <3

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

policy workshop

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

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

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

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

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

I’d like to workshop the following:

“Death of” for people who have died of whatever cause while in police custody/while interacting with police, when cause of death hasn’t been ruled on by whatever local body is authorized to make a ruling (or if it’s been ruled accidental.)
“Homicide of” (or “Suicide of”) for such deaths that have been ruled on by whatever local authority makes that ruling, but the death hasn’t been ruled by a court action as a murder. Manslaughter convictions would remain at this title. (I believe “Homicide of” is more neutral than “Killing of.” In some dictionaries, “Killing of” is defined as an intentional killing. This is a violation of WP:COMMONTERM, but I believe it's justified IAR because we need to prevent police-related deaths of Blacks from being titled differently from deaths of Whites.)
“Murder of” for such deaths if there's a murder conviction. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I think you conflate the dictionary definition of "intent" with the criminal definition of "intent". A dictionary definition of intent does not mean the perpetrator intended to commit a crime, only that they intended to cause the death of. Whether that killing was justified or not, or criminal or not, does not factor into the dictionary definition.

Police, whenever they shoot a suspect, intend to kill. This is established in practice, policy and training. A police officer is required by training and policy not to shoot to wound.

Criminal intent requires a knowledge and understanding that the act is criminal. When dictionaries define killing as causing the death of a person deliberately or intentionally, they do not mean to say with criminal intent. They just mean it was not accidental.

~~I would oppose this proposal because "homicide" is not a common term and in most cases the have not been found guilty of homicide.~~ --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's probably a pipe dream, then. NM. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, sorry, I think I shot you down too quickly. There is no harm in discussing it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm trying to find a place where, right now, we can find something that is possible. If we insist that it be everything we ever wanted, there'll be pushback. Let's get what is possible. I think "Homicide of" is possible. It's possible that in the future, policy for "Killing of" is possible. I considered using 'Either "Killing of" or "Homicide of"' but again, that puts it into human judgement, and in this specific narrow case, I don't think we should leave it to judgement at each article. It's too open to the feeling of false consensus in the case of articles that get large numbers of new editors there to defend the police. I think some very formal "Homicide of" isn't as arguable with. I don't really care whether it's at Killing of or Homicide of. I don't think that's really important. I just want it to be the same for both Blacks and Whites. That's my feeling. —valereee (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I will not stand in the way. It is certainly an improvement. I do fear people will object to the use of a legal term but, who knows, I may be wrong.

On second thought, homicide itself is not illegal by definition. It is only homicide without justification that is illegal. Self-defense and legal executions for example are homicides. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this means the only logical argument against "Homicide of ..." is that homicide is not a common term. That does not seem like a huge impediment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that we can set up redirects for "Killing of" or "Shooting of" or whatever the common terms are. This is something that simply needs to prevent systemic bias. It may not be perfect, but it may be a case of IAR w/re commonterm. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think it's a bit of an impediment, honestly. "Homicide of" is a very unusual phrase to use, indeed the word "Homicide" is as well. It just doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think it's natural to many. People would probably argue it's very rarely going to fit the bill as the COMMONNAME for any such killing. "Killing of" is likely to be hearty debate I suppose but maybe, after recent articles and lengthy discussions, it could be more acceptable? It'd definitely be my preference. Someone might want to do some data collection, numerically, how many articles we have that start with each prefix? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Quarry. 1,475 starting with Murder of, 260 with killing, 1,471 with death, 9 with homicide, 260 for shooting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, I truly could not care less which we settle on as long as we settle on one phrase rather than using one phrase more often for Blacks and one more often for Whites. All I want is for us to find one that we can get agreement on. For purposes of reader convenience we can use redirects. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the first thing we should ask at an RfC is "Should we ensure deaths of Blacks in police encounters/custody aren't titled differently than those of whites? Yes or No?"

And then go from there to find the actual best solution? —valereee (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Of course, and I agree with you both (I saw C&C's recent RM a few days back), this is indeed an issue. I just mean that I don't feel consensus will agree to have the primary title as such an unusual one, by standardising 'homicide', note we only have 9 such articles currently. If 'killing' is a pipe dream, I feel like homicide would be worse. Btw RfC should probably make clear that any outcome won't apply where a specific event has had significant media coverage and been given a particular COMMONNAME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, hm, that's an interesting point. At what point is an event so big that it would overrule this? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Adolf Hilter. See ngram. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure. C&C's is a really good example. I don't think the line could be codified and it'd probably be down to local consensus to have a hearty debate on it, I guess. I don't think it'd be a big issue, though, the majority of killing articles in that category aren't that popular so I don't think they have a particular common name, and I doubt anyone would care enough to try mass-make the argument.

On the note of common term again, Google Trends, Ngrams. It's kinda telling, honestly. I think even I'd oppose homicide on the basis of it being too obscure of a term. I know these results aren't limited to killings/deaths, but shows general term prevalence + to nail the point: when was the last time RS said "Jane Doe was homicided", or you Googled for someone's homicide, rather than their death or killing? It'd constantly create friction for recent events and the Google banner predictions thing on search when they occasionally decide to diverge from the Wiki title (eg what happened to Kenosha riot when we were busy playing RM ping-pong, it looked totally silly, though I think this case was maybe a cache error). By the way, slight error in my Quarry above, I forgot to filter out redirects. Updated quarry - situation is more dire than I thought - we have just one non-redirect article with "Homicide of". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol on was homicided :D —valereee (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made myself chuckle more than a few times yesterday. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real evidence that there are significant differences between Wikipedia article titles depending on whether a person who died in an incident was Black or not? When I asked for such evidence at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn (11 days ago), I received no reply. If anything, what I seem to notice is outraged people requesting that articles about recent incidents in which black people died should use "Killing of", but otherwise no clear difference. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intersectionality. Segregation by any other name is still segregation. While the outward facing rationale maybe that it is because these are shootings, we know that the real reason has nothing to do with the manner of death. The real reason is, most certainly, because they were shot by a police officer. Police officers in fact shoot and kill more black people that white people. The killing is also more likely to be notable. Whatever the reasoning, articles about the killing of a black person is more likely not to be titled as such.

Even if it is not a race-based bias, it is a pro-police bias. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure of that either, and "Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer. If there is a statistical difference depending on whether police were involved or not, that may be just an ease-of-finding bias. A while ago I learned during some RM discussion that there was a convention of ordinarily using "Shooting of" for articles about shootings, and IIRC, there was a reference to looking in categories to find such articles. To check the convention and look for other outliers, I looked in places like Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, etc. Articles outside of those categories are harder to find. I don't think I'm the only person who has used categories to identify and reinforce naming consistency, and I don't think I'm biased in favor of police. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. You misunderstand me. I am NOT saying you are biased. You are just following the consistency already established. The problem is the naming system is biased. The consistency was developed piece by piece without considering the outcome. How the subject is treated as a whole.

Re: ""Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer" ... but it does in fact if not in principle. Look through the articles in Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state, the majority of the "Shooting of ..." articles are about a police killing of a black man. Almost all are about a police officer killing a person. I am not saying it is racism. I am saying it is an inherent bias. It may not be intentional, but the end result is a POV favoring the police. An over-cautiousness, to the point of not even acknowledging the person was killed. A self-censorship to the point that even the mere possibility of implying guilt (which I do not think is really implied in killing of) leads us to choose a euphemistic title for the articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain this another way, consider why Killing of Harambe has never been nominated to be moved to "Shooting of ..."

Or why do we not have a problem with Killing of Cecil the lion. The lion's killing was legal and sanctioned. Yes, he was shot with an arrow. But if "Killing of ..." implied criminal intent, then why is this article not named Death of Cecil the lion. Are we saying the dictionary meaning of the word changes when the deceased is a human? There is no mention of human in the dictionaries mentioned in our discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure, but I'll offer some possibilities. I think it is more clear that someone deliberately set out to kill Harambe and Cecil – even the perpetrators would agree that those were clearly planned actions with a deliberate intent to kill. (I don't think anyone has said that "Killing of" implies criminal intent – just that it implies deliberate intent and thus seems inappropriate as a generally applied naming convention.) Also, there are major legal (and for most people, moral) repercussions for deliberate killings of people but not of apes and lions under the given circumstances, so we should be much more careful about describing the death of a person as a "killing" than the death of a non-human. What may seem like a euphemism to one person may be a restraint against expressing opinionated POV conclusions – if many of the "killers" were police, that is not necessarily pro-police bias – just anti-POV restraint. Also, there are so few articles about the violent deaths of individual animals that no one is really watching them for establishing a clear naming convention about them. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The zoologist did not wake up that day intent on killing Harambe. They did it because there was a reasonable fear that he would harm the child. Assuming the best motives for police in these instances, the police did not wake up that day intent on killing a black man that day. They presummably did it because of a reasonable fear that he would harm another person or them. However, when police shoot, they shoot to kill. This is established in practice, training, and policy. The concept of shoot to wound has generally been rejected by every police department in the United States.

Every time a police officer discharges their weapon, they do it with an intent to kill. Whether that intent is criminal or not is not our concern. Whether it is a justifiable killing or an unjustifiable killing is not our concern. In either case, it is a killing. An act done deliberately with the intent to cause the death of another being, whether for good cause or bad, is a killing. When a person shoots another in the torso multiple times, they intend to kill that person, plain and simple. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of significant differences you ask? Well, see my Quarry data above. We have an equal number of killing of and shooting of articles on the wiki. It's about a 2:1 non-redirect ratio for shooting of / killing of, but the majority of our shooting of articles seem to be black people in the US. So, I'd go out on a limb and say either most of our shooting/killing articles are of black people, or black people are disproportionately titled w shooting ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think "homicide" is too technical to make a good article title. Like "Cardiac arrest of John Doe" or "Involuntary manslaughter of John Doe" (poor John). If we're writing for like a teenage reading level, I doubt the implications of "homicide" will be grasped by the average reader. There is that problem that in British English, "killing" apparently implies intentional killing, but you know they're only like less than 10% of all English speakers in the world, I think they should just update their dictionaries :-P Le v!v ich 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: the idea that "killing" apparently implies "intentional killing", I think, is a red herring for two reasons:

Events such as earthquakes are often described as "killing X people"
Even when talking about a human killing another, it only means the killing was intentional and not accidental. It does not mean with criminal intent because we have the words murder and manslaughter to describe knowingly killing a person with criminal intent (i.e. with the intent to commit a crime). This is why the phrases "justifiable killing" and "unjustifiable killing" make sense at all and have wide use on Google Ngrams. If killing inherently implied criminality, then "justifiable killing" would be an oxymoron.

Killing at most only includes the intention to kill and NOT the intention to commit a crime, or that the act was criminal. This is why self-defense can be described as a "justifiable killing".[7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, quite the aspersion to imply the great Cambridge Dictionary could be wrong. Please strike. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If editors got the inkling that 'homicide' was being used as a stepping stone to 'killing of' they'd oppose flatly on creep grounds, without engaging in a discussion on the merits of the proposal. 'Killing of' is more natural, and with it being more commonly used it marries better with existing naming policy. Zindor (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zindor, I don't see it as a stepping stone. I see it as an acknowledgement that consensus does change, and this is a moment, in the US at least, where that is probably happening but may not quite be there yet. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, one thing we could do is set it up as

Death of

Killing of or Homicide of (please indicate your preference and provide rationale)

Murder of

That is, we don't necessarily have to decide on Killing of vs. Homicide of. We can ask for consensus on one vs. the other. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be a good solution, valereee. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable way to lay it out. Le v!v ich 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is to think that "Homicide" is a bit too far from ordinary plain language. And that some readers would conflate 'homicide' with 'murder'. I recall proposing the word "homicide" at least once in an RM – at Talk:2011 Waltham murders. That suggestion did not prevail – instead the agreed name became 2011 Waltham triple murder (which seems fine to me). In that discussion, one editor (Joseph A. Spadaro) said "To use the term 'homicide' implies that it is a non-murder (homicidal) death. If anything, that term would be POV." I don't agree, but that's what was said. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

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

Toots | RD

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

In appreciation

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

Picture barnstar

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

Congratulations

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

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

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

Congratulations

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

I am sorry but it wont last long. I am only using it in protest until a particularly irksome bias is resolved. I will be back in red as soon as that happens. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

let's not hold our breath :) —valereee (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reintroducing the challenged ... content

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

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

Here's a jaw dropper

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

Valereee, yep. Just shot 137 times. Only 1 instance of "dead" and one instance of "killing" in the prose, but 9 instances of "dead" and 3 instances of "fatal" in the titles of citations. That does not even consider the instances of these words in the prose of the sources. Bending over backwards to not acknowledge "death" or "killing". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't believe it. I was like...so did BOTH of them die, or just the one? I had to read the entire article to figure that out. Just bizarre. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, this is not funny ... but I can't help but crack up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. You have to laugh or you have to cry. —valereee (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of my father's favorite sayings was: "You can laugh or you can cry: it's your choice." Le v!v ich 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if we asked ...

Articles for contextual reference

In the context of the titles linked in the collapsed section above, do the words killing and killings imply wrongdoing and / or criminality?

Option 1: Yes, both wrongdoing and criminality
Option 2: Wrongdoing but not criminality
Option 3: Neither
Option 4: It depends on if it is killings or killing

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

Doesn't it seem more likely for that question to end up with option 1/2? You'd need a result of 3 for it to help with the naming issue, which seems unlikely. imv, I think your RM-in-batches idea was perhaps the most likely to succeed yet. Bunch them up based on their similarities, choose the most uncontroversial naming changes, get that to pass, and then see what we're left with. RMs being 7 days, it's also a lot more we can get done rather than the 30 day RfC. Once titles are sufficiently changed, imv it'd take a long time for it to spiral out of control again, and in general it'd create an implicit consensus behind the new naming system anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, re: "Doesn't it seem more likely for that question to end up with option 1/2?" ... then we will just have to accept that. We would then just start an RM for all "Killing of ... " articles and all fatal shooting articles titled with the prefix "Shooting of ..." to be changed to "Death of ... ". That also resolves the situation if not to our satisfaction. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And all "List of killings by law enforcement officers ..." to "List of deaths related to law enforcement officers". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hesitate to put the meaning of words up to a !vote. It really doesn't matter how the self-selecting group of Wikipedia editors who are going to respond to this RFC (or any RFC) define words. That's such a tiny minority of people (and a skewed, not-at-all-representative-of-our-readers sample) that I'd have no faith that whatever the answer came back as would match up with what our readers (two billion English-speaking people around the world) think. I know we're spitballing ideas here, but I think some of the other ones are more likely to succeed. I agree with your (C&C) point elsewhere that focusing on the definition of "killing" is a bit of a red herring. Le v!v ich 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, let the record show, I have considered all alternative options in good faith. IMO, the only thing that will adequately answer this question is a mass RM of 90+ articles. At least that will show that CONSISTENCY is a circular argument. Anything else besides a mass RM will descend into minutiae or a consensus split. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone could possibly claim you haven't been thoroughly exploring all conceivable options to skin this cat. Your efforts to push this boulder up this hill are greatly appreciated (as are everyone else's).

W/r/t a mass RM, what's the plan for if this happens:

Voter A makes a common name argument for article #8
Voter B makes a common name argument for article #24
Voter C makes a common name argument for article #63
Voter D procedurally opposes because these articles shouldn't be bundled, as evidenced by the arguments made by Voters A, B, and C
Voter E procedurally opposes per Voter D, etc. etc.

I fear that's how a mass RM will break up and fail.

Another alternative is to propose a policy change (a "default" position), and then boldly moving the 90+ articles per the new policy change (assuming its approved), and then anyone who wants to make a common name-based proposal to move any of those articles to a title other than the "default" can open an RM for that particular article.

I fear if it's a mass RM for a "default" position, even with caveats and "no prejudice to a subsequent RM based on common name for any bundled title" disclaimers, that'll get lost on !voters. I think a lot of !voters will see 90+ titles bundled in an RM, see some common name arguments and a procedural oppose based on the bundling, and just pile on with procedural opposes based on the bundling without thinking too much about caveats and disclaimers. A policy page proposal would avoid that and would allow for a bold move... and have the added bonus of giving explicit guidance for the titles of future article creations.

Granted, the policy page could also be updated after the mass RM. It's a "top-down" or "bottom-up" question, I guess. All that said, I'm not opposed to a mass RM of course. Le v!v ich 16:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right options: Calling something "a killing" [using 'killing' as a noun] tends to imply that someone deliberated and then set out on a pre-planned course of action that successfully resulted in the death of someone. It does not imply that their decision or course of action was wrong or criminal, only intentional. So all of the presented "options" are not relevant to the key issue. For example, the Killing of Osama bin Laden was clearly a killing, but that does not mean it was a criminal or wrong-headed mission. As another example, accidentally killing [verb] a bystander or a hostage when trying to shoot a perpetrator is not a killing of [noun] the bystander / hostage. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof, that argument may work for Shooting of Breonna Taylor. How do you explain your opposition to Killing of Greg Gunn. Are you saying that Smith shot Gunn seven times accidentally? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smith did not sit at his desk and draft a plan for how he was going to track down Gunn and corner him in an alley where he could calmly approach and mow him down. Rather, he suddenly found himself in a situation in which he lost control over what was going on. He tried to get back the control using a taser, and it didn't work. He tried using his baton, and that also didn't succeed. In the midst of this confusing tussle, he drew his weapon and started shooting. I would not have objected to "Manslaughter of Greg Gunn", since that was the conclusion reached by the legal system. (This is drifting off the topic that I responded to. I feel like I'm just being repeatedly challenged for the sake of wearing me down. That might succeed, frankly.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof, I am so sorry! I do not mean to wear you down. But you are the only devil's advocate (for lack of a better) that I have. You have helped me immensely!

In fact, your latest argument has convinced me to curate the mass RM list more closely. I have decided to exclude Breonna Taylor and similar cases.

You deserve a break from this. I will not ping you any more. You can find discussion well enough on your own. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll also offer that what we are talking about, mostly, is what to use as Wikipedia article titles by default, not in particular specific cases. Careful study on a case-by-case basis to consider each particular situation is also desirable, but we're talking about whether shooting deaths should be generally be called killings. I think I tend to be more conservative about potentially expressing POV judgments than most. I would personally tend to prefer "Death of" for many article titles, but that doesn't seem to satisfy many other Wikipedia editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely in the opposition camp of "Death of ..." in the past. However, this whole thing has convinced me that it maybe our only hope. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for 'death of' for anything that hasn't been declared a murder by a court ruling. The issue that's most important for me is that we have consistency for people who are of color, especially when police are involved. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fwiw, BarrelProof: I don't want you to be worn down, and I'm sorry it feels that way. I believe you are a well-intentioned editor who disagrees with me/with whom I disagree on many issues, I respect your viewpoint, and I hope you'll continue to offer your input. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

Liz

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

GreenMeansGo, that is sweet but when is the book coming?

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October editathons from Women in Red

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

Online events:

Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

ITN recognition for Robert W. Gore

On 22 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert W. Gore, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

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

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

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

Hook

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

ProcrastinatingReader, I am thinking ... that an inquest alleged that the killing of Alton Manning was unlawful and a judicial review found that the decision to not bring charges was flawed, but no charges have been brought forward? That is 193 characters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, tweaked the above again. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds good to me. I personally would use 'found' rather than 'alleged', since it was a legal finding of unlawful killing by a jury (UK doesn't necessarily require individuals to be charged in that killing for a finding of unlawful killing). An allege part would be that the individual prison officers are guilty of manslaughter, but that's not being said here really. I can submit the nomination at some point, need to brush up on DYK procedure a bit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated, thanks again! Sidenote, gotta say DYK is a confusing place (even though it's not even my first nom). So much procedural stuff, rules, sections, subpages (which apply to me, which don't?), etc. There's just too much going on, from the perspective of someone not very involved in the process. Better organisation of the pages and some trimming could maybe help, but it feels slightly overwhelming currently. If I feel this, maybe a new, casual editor who just wrote their first article does too, and if so they might just abandon their attempt before submitting it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, great job. I made some minor edits. I will leave the review to someone else so we can have the most number of people having reviewed the article before its posting. By the time it eventually comes to ERRORS, you will have me, the reviewer, the promoter, and the admin who loaded the queue to call-on as witnesses.

I know DYK is a bit much, but after a few more noms you will find it to be easy. The regulars are actually very helpful and would have assisted in correcting any errors. It does have a big learning curve, but that may be unavoidable since the arduous process was created to ensure that, by the time it reaches the Main Page, it has been reviewed by several people.

BTW, if asked for a QPQ, tell them how many previous nominations you have had in the past. People with less than 5 previous nominations are not required to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Among the Sierra Nevada, California

On 24 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Among the Sierra Nevada, California, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Albert Bierstadt's landscape painting Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains (pictured) was removed from its frame and glued to an interior wall when Locusts on Hudson was rebuilt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Among the Sierra Nevada, California. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Among the Sierra Nevada, California), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Among the Sierra Nevada, California

Sdkb, How the fuck did you get to see it? I thought museums were closed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs, a few more Smithsonians just reopened the other day! It was very empty; I don't think many people have found out yet. Timed passes are required for now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The display around that painting is quite interesting; it's got its own alcove with a soft circular bench. It might be nice to have a picture of the setup for the article if it expands. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, I got a camera and I live less than 10 blocks away. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read in one of the sources that you can actually see fish swimming in the water. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lawrence Hogan 2

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

Ginsburg

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

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

Andy Ngo

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

For the 'D' part, there is discussion ongoing at User talk:Vautrinjr. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsetonian, I should have linked to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That concerns material about living persons [that] has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. The trolls who were replacing the established term "journalist" (which is widely used in the refs) with the abusive term "propagandist" were not making a good-faith BLP objection; indeed, they were doing just the opposite. The subject of the article appears to be controversial and his page (which had just come out of protection, but is now protected again) was being repeatedly vandalised, pure and simple. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a troll and I agree with them only on the fact that "journalist" is not NPOV description of the person. I did not add "propagandist". If I did show me where? I add "provocateur" (which already included in the body) while leaving in "journalist". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Springee, no it is not a 1RR. progandist is different than provocateur. 1RR only applies to revert to my preferred version. I did not do that. Journalist is still there. I have not reverted a single edit. I do not know why you two are even here. Go and ping me from Talk:Andy Ngo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing the same sentence that has been subject to many back and forths. We are here because I see this as a 1RR violation rather than a simple content dispute. As it's an editor behavior question I figured I would raise it here rather than on the talk page. Tedder as the admin who recently locked the page, do you think CC's second edit to the same disputed sentence in the last 24hr is a 1RR? This is independent of questions of BLP etc. Springee (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You restored "journalist" in spite of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. That is a violation. I have not reverted a single edit. An edit is not a reversion unless it restores a previous version without a significant change. Every edit I made was significantly different --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist was a long time standing description and one supported by many RSs as well as talk page discussions. Additionally I wouldn't have violated 1RR even if I added that he was an astronaut since it was my only edit. Removing "journalist" this first time was a revert. Editing the same disputed sentence to add a word that is very similar to propagandist (provocateur vs propagandist) is also in effect a revert. It certainly is RECKLESS. Beyond that, you added a controversial LABEL to the opening sentence in wikivoice. That is just plain bad editing. Springee (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, any editing is a reversion. I have responded to your comment on the talk page. Please discuss there. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist is long standing and has been clearly discussed in the talk pages. If you don't self revert I will take this to ARE as this is clearly a 1RR violation. To be clear, you removed it here [[9]] and here [[10]] so this is a clear case of 1RR violation and you should be well aware of it based on this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not respond to threats. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - ARE discussion related to Andy Ngo article

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

Discretionary sanctions

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

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

DYK for Global Certification Commission

On 6 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Global Certification Commission, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Global Certification Commission has certified the eradication of wild poliovirus in five of the six WHO regions, with the exception of the Eastern Mediterranean Region? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Global Certification Commission. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Global Certification Commission), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

On 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harvey J. Alter, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michael Houghton (virologist), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charles M. Rice, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 19:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

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

Protected images

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

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

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

October harvest

October

harvest

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

Thanks for the heads up, Gerda. I started discussion here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events

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

Notice

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

Friendly note

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

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

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

Online events:

New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

DYK Nomination Medal

		The 25 DYK Nomination Medal
		Thank you for bringing more than 25 new articles to our readers' attention, in addition to the many fine articles that you yourself create. Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2020

Sorry, I haven't learned the rules on titles and captions for the new format ... did I get it right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern recording of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"

Dank, looks good to me. I am not aware of any set rules.

BTW, it would be nice to change the November 3, 2020 to a recording of the song instead of a non-legible image of the sheet music cover.

{{Main page image/TFA|image= Tip and Ty again.ogg |caption= Modern recording of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" }}

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't recall that we've done that, but I don't have any objection if you want to propose it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is Wehwalt's blurb ... Wehwalt, thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 3, I think you mean? I have no objection in principle but if that's in place of the image I'd think it would look a little blah. I think we did either audio or video once prior to my being a coordinator.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, too late for me to do it but you can copy the text above and take a look. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it with slightly modified caption. We'll see who salutes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the error report: I went with "U.S." because, for those people who just flew in from Mars and don't understand, "American" is in the second sentence. (Also, the style guides generally prefer "U.S." when it's used as an adjective in the sense of "federal".) But it wouldn't bother me at all if someone wants to change it to "United States"; it's not a burning issue. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg 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 Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The article Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Maile66, any ideas for a hook? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thought. Not sure what was not already public knowledge. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was in the news, but maybe not everybody saw it, and it is a bit unusual for a funeral: — Maile (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's personal trainer Bryant Johnson honored her by doing three push-ups in front of her casket? Moore, Elena (September 25, 2020). "Ginsburg's Trainer Honors Late Justice With Pushups At Capitol Hill Memorial". NPR. Retrieved September 25, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

... that in honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a white collar like hers was placed on the Fearless Girl sculpture outside the New York Stock Exchange?."Monuments Across New York City Pay Tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Town & Country. September 22, 2020. Retrieved September 24, 2020.

DYK for Beatrice Lumpkin

On 5 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beatrice Lumpkin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at age 102, Beatrice Lumpkin, a union organizer and lifelong member of the Communist Party, donned hazmat suit–style gear to drop off her vote-by-mail ballot for the US elections? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrice Lumpkin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beatrice Lumpkin), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs

Hi. Thanks for your comment. Is there a discussion where Discogs has been found to be unreliable? I've found it to be one of the best sites covering older music of the 1940s and 1950s. Is there another site covering older music that you think would be a good substitute? Cbl62 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it due to the crowdsourcing of content? Cbl62 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See: WP:RSP#Discogs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Cbl62 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions for a good comprehensive source covering basic data (release date, label, etc.) for songs from the 1930s to 1950s? Cbl62 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, if a fact is notable, you can find it in a book. I have seen several books listed on Google Books that have a complete jazz discography of those periods. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's just a bit surprising that there's not an authoritative database for these sorts of basic facts. In the worlds of movies and sports, such authoritative databases abound. Cbl62 (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POTD/2019-07-21 – featured picture at Portal:History

Template:POTD/2019-07-21—a POTD subpage which you contributed to—has been added to the featured picture section of the Portal:History. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And many other POTDs on other portals, including Template:POTD/2019-07-22 at Portal:Technology. Thank you for your contributions to POTDs. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183

Online events:

New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ITN recognition for Chuck Yeager

On 8 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chuck Yeager, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Coffeeandcrumbs,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Willing Powel scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Elizabeth Willing Powel article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 17, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 17, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

On 13 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the second U.S. Supreme Court justice to lie in state at the U.S. Capitol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory supplement

I count this as good progress! :) —valereee (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I am so exhausted and I wouldn't know where to begin writing such a thing. I would need a lot of help. Maybe after the holidays if you, ProcrastinatingReader, and Levivich are willing to help write it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking just create a page, write a few sentences about the purpose of the guideline and a link to the RfC that resulted in its creation, and (most importantly) slap the flowchart into the page. Then we add the explanatory supplement template and add it into the AT policy page as a link. Not the preferred result, but it may well work I'm thinking: we can do a bunch of bold moves quoting the newly created explanatory supplement and (assuming none get reverted, I wouldn't really expect they would be) we're good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll help. And PR is right. Writing is hard. Editing is easy. Put up a page with the flowchart, a link to RfC, and a starting content that "This is the flowchart for evaluating article titles about deaths." Then just go do something else. Take a bubble bath or something. PR will no doubt add whatever template and links they're talking about in their nerdy ways I don't understand. ;) It'll grow. :) —valereee (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to all of the above. I congratulate you C&C, you really pushed a heavy rock up a big hill. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler on OTD

December 20 isn't really a good day to list Hitler. He should be put on a day that is one of the most important for him. I was going to put him on January 30 (when he was appointed chancellor), but there's already another Hitler article there, so he needs another home. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 07:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, it is so hard. No way we are going to use his birthday. But there has to be a date that fits but does not overtly offend. I will keep looking. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thomas J. White

On 22 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas J. White, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas J. White estimated that he gave more than $75 million to charity after resolving "to die as close to penniless as possible"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas J. White. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas J. White), and if they received a combined total of 416.7 or more views per hour (ie, 5,000-plus views in 12 hours or 10,000-plus in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK stats

Congratulations! With 10,585 views, your Thomas J. White hook is the one of the most viewed non-lead/photo hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I guess I am not the only one that finds his life story interesting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188

Online events:

New: Climate and environment | Public domain
Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest
Year-long initiative: Women's rights
Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020

Other ways to participate:

Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events
Become a member | Opt-out of notifications
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of continuing efforts to improve WP. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:ProcrastinatingReader submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is my pleasure to commend User:Coffeeandcrumbs for Editor of the Week. C&C has been an editor for 3 years, and in that time they have created, and contributed to, a staggering number of quality and interesting articles. To pick a small selection of their contributions, many of which improve the encyclopaedia's coverage of women, I've particularly enjoyed reading Mae Jemison, Valentina Tereshkova (GAs) and Elizabeth Willing Powel (FA created from scratch). C&C also does tireless work behind the scenes, particularly at WP:ERRORS, WP:ITN and WP:DYK, and has thousands of edits at these venues. C&C is unfailingly polite, helpful, productive, and a model Wikipedian. I hope this award is a fitting recognition of their continuing efforts to improve the encyclopaedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,269: / Line 1,269: @@
 |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
 |-
-|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of {{{briefreason}}}. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of continuing efforts to improve WP. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
 |}
-[[User:{{{nominator}}}]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+[[User:ProcrastinatingReader]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+:It is my pleasure to commend User:Coffeeandcrumbs for Editor of the Week. C&C has been an editor for 3 years, and in that time they have created, and contributed to, a staggering number of quality and interesting articles. To pick a small selection of their contributions, many of which improve the encyclopaedia's coverage of women, I've particularly enjoyed reading [[Mae Jemison]], [[Valentina Tereshkova]] (GAs) and [[Elizabeth Willing Powel]] (FA created from scratch). C&C also does tireless work behind the scenes, particularly at [[WP:ERRORS]], [[WP:ITN]] and [[WP:DYK]], and has thousands of edits at these venues. C&C is unfailingly polite, helpful, productive, and a model Wikipedian. I hope this award is a fitting recognition of their continuing efforts to improve the encyclopaedia.
-:{{{nominationtext}}}
 You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
 <pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>

v t e Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics	Errors Administrator instructions Main Page alternatives FAQ Editing Design Queue Yesterday Tomorrow History Wikipedia languages Sister projects Sandbox April Fools' Day Don't delete!
Today's featured article	Requests Pending requests Recent Oddities Most viewed Not yet used
Featured articles	Criteria Candidates Log Review Archive Statistics Former featured articles Unreviewed
Did you know...	Discussion Rules Guidelines Nominations Reviewer instructions Preps and queues Archive Stats
In the news	Error reports Nominations Discussion Admin guide General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Awards Sports Discussion Archives Candidate archives
Current events portal	Current events portal for sports Discussion How the Current events portal works How to archive the portal
Selected anniversaries	Discussion Holidays and observances All
Today's featured list	Submissions Statistics Previously run lists Get involved
Featured lists	Criteria Candidates Log Task force Removal candidates Review list Log Former featured lists
Picture of the day	Guidelines Unused Archive Tomorrow
Featured pictures	Criteria Candidates Nomination procedure
Featured topics	Featured topics on the main page Candidates Log Nomination procedure Criteria Removal candidates Good topics Former featured topics Featured topic questions

Yesterday April 27	Today April 28, 2024	Tomorrow April 29	Day after tomorrow April 30
TFA	TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.
		TFL (Monday)

Revision as of 05:00, 11 January 2021

Welcome!

A cupcake for you!

Precious

Million award

A barnstar for you!

Main page compliment

A cup of tea for you!

A barnstar for you!

Congratulations from the Military History Project

You have been made a hero of Wikipedia labour!

A barnstar for you!

Quarter Million Award for Valentina Tereshkova

Barnstar for you

barnstar

ITN recognition for Chi Chi DeVayne

Powel

Thoughts from Venicescapes (not coordinated with above)

Other tangentially related commentary

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Picture of the day

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

September

RM

NYP as source and more

Use of Google's Ngram facility

Culture bound ideas and terms

Request for comment regarding clerking duties on Talk:Kiev

Homespun movement

Thank you! <3

policy workshop

related question

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Toots | RD

In appreciation

Picture barnstar

Congratulations

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Congratulations

reintroducing the challenged ... content

Here's a jaw dropper

What if we asked ...

A barnstar for you!

Liz

October editathons from Women in Red

ITN recognition for Robert W. Gore

Four Award

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Hook

DYK for Among the Sierra Nevada, California

A barnstar for you!

Among the Sierra Nevada, California

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lawrence Hogan 2

Ginsburg

Andy Ngo

Notice - ARE discussion related to Andy Ngo article

Discretionary sanctions

DYK for Global Certification Commission

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Protected images

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

October harvest

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events

Notice

Friendly note

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

DYK Nomination Medal

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2020

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

Your GA nomination of Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Your GA nomination of Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

DYK for Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

DYK for Beatrice Lumpkin

Discogs

Template:POTD/2019-07-21 – featured picture at Portal:History

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

December with Women in Red

ITN recognition for Chuck Yeager

New Page Patrol December Newsletter