This is an archive of past discussions with User:Barbara (WVS). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Recommending new editors to your project Women's Health
Hi Barbara (WVS),
Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members to on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.
We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.
Mikael Häggström made 15 our of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. If you invite them to your project, they will have the opportunity to contribute more!
Mathmensch made 3 our of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. If you invite them to your project, they will have the opportunity to contribute more!
Potatornado made 2 our of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. If you invite them to your project, they will have the opportunity to contribute more!
Michael Goodyear's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Health, and most of your project's articles also fall under this category. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Doc James's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Health and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Little pob's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Health and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
JenOttawa's editing history shows connections with your project members! They have posted multiple messages on the user talk pages of a number of your project members. Studies have found that editors with these kinds of connections to project members tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Iztwoz edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Iztwoz and project member Doc James (talk·contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. This suggests that Iztwoz will be interested in editing your project's articles!
Love the tool! Nice tool - but the results are incredibly disappointing. Not your fault and not the tool's fault. These results confirm my impression that this project is severely understaffed. Barbara (WVS)✐✉14:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that our system can only find very few recommendations for the project (in default, we should have 16 recommendations), and cannot find a single "newcomers" who just registered in Wikipedia this week, and edited project related articles in their first edit (that's how we identify newcomers for a project). But we believe, or based on our algorithms, those are the most relevant editors to your project. Could you tell more why this list disappointed you? Bobo.03 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your tool is very helpful. I am not disappointed in the tool at all. I was hoping there were newer editors that could be encouraged to keep editing Women's health articles. But not so much. Thank you for this tool. Barbara (WVS)✐✉23:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I see. I notice that your project is not active recently. So besides the new editors, we hope to point these experienced editors who might be interested in helping out. Do you think it is possible for you to fill the survey questions for the editors we recommend so we can have some sense how to improve the system? Bobo.03 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Barbara, I wonder if you could fill the survey questions to our recommendations even if they are not the editors you are looking for. Even a one star rating on our recommendations would be good for us to improve the system in our future iteration. Thanks! Also, our study is supposed two send you two batches of recommendations. Would you like to continue receiving the next batch? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
for Pain management in children. I've lived in constant pain since I was a toddler and have a very keen interest in the subject (I contributed most of Cancer pain and a lot of Pain) so thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I am speechless and very touched - this has to be the best type of message anyone can receive on a talk page. I've sent an email to you. Who needs barnstars. Barbara (WVS)✐✉14:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the phone conversations. I really needed that. Here is the summary I said I'd write up.
At the London Wikimania conference in August 2014 I had a twenty minute conversation with Wikimedia's then executive director Lila Tretikov. I said though Wikimedia's mission is to disseminate knowledge we are actually disseminating unreliable assertions - "knowledge" implies a high level of confidence that the assertion is true, and Wikipedia by its own definition is not trustworthy - and I asked whether she thought this was an issue worth addressing, and she said she did.
We met again in San Francisco the following year where I put a plan to her for making all of English Wikipedia's medical articles reliable in ten years.
It involved recruiting the editors of all the world's top medical journals to offer a reviewing service for Wikipedia's medical content, each journal reviewing the articles in its topic domain.
I said I wanted to approach BMJ, the company that publishes The BMJ among other journals, and ask them to provide reviewers for one of our articles. I asked if I could say I have her backing and she offered to write directly to BMJ's editor in chief, Fiona Godlee, and propose a teleconference.
In the teleconference I briefly explained the vision and stressed the importance of the quality of the reviewers. Dr Godlee and her staff seemed to me to be genuinely enthusiastic, and we agreed to try it on one article to begin with and then follow up with perhaps three run concurrently.
I put out a call at Wikiproject medicine for authors to propose articles for review and three were proposed and I presented these to BMJ who chose Parkinson's disease. They provided five reviewers. One is the most published author on Parkinson's disease. Another was deeply involved in defining its diagnostic criteria.
I'll just finish describing the model, and then get back to the narrative.
Shift the reputation risk from authors to reviewers. The two pillars of academic publishing quality control are peer review and reputation, and the strength of these largely determines how reliable we think a publication is. In academic publishing an author puts her reputation on the line when she signs a work, and publishers when they publish a work. This is a strong (not complete) deterrent against fraud and sloppiness on the author's part, and it obliges publishers to choose and manage their reviewers well. In academic publishing, peer reviewers are traditionally anonymous but, if we are to make a Wikipedia article as reliable as the sources we trust, someone's reputation needs to be on the line. We cannot force authors to disclose their identity, so the reviewers must put their reputations behind the article.
Subjecting a Wikipedia article to genuinely stringent expert review turns it into a reliable source by our own criteria, the kind of source that could be confidently cited in a scientific or medical journal, a school essay or a Wikipedia article. Until someone changes it. The moment someone changes the meaning of the article it ceases to be reliable. We should prominently link the reader of the current version to the expert-reviewed version in the article's history. Without a prominent link at the top of the current version pointing the reader to the reliable version, this whole exercise is pointless, and certainly no expert would waste her time reviewing.
Prominently offer the reader a simple diff. Here is a standard diff showing changes in both text and wikimarkup to Dengue fever after it passed peer review. Here is the "simple diff" showing just the text and changes to it - no wiki markup. The first is very difficult to read. In the second, you can see at a glance how the topic has evolved since expert review.
The model involves a paid facilitator: an expert Wikipedian who will present a Wikipedia-policy-compliant review to the article's talk page complete with appropriate sources to support every significant proposed change, and who will with the volunteer community integrate those changes into the article.
Hello and glad tidings! Just wanted to let you know there's an edit-a-thon happening at the Pittsburgh YWCA to add info about under-represented women in Pittsburgh's history. More info here. If you know someone who might be interested, please spread the word! --TheLeaper (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Women's Health Articles
Thank you for reaching out! I'm a very very unskilled user of Wikipedia, but learning! I'm happy to help in any way I can, but I might need a little hand-holding at first! What projects/articles did you have in mind? ----Foxtreetop (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Since there are about 5 million articles we have a big choice!! Not really because all the Women's health articles haven't even been identified. One nice place to start is to pick an article that you are interested in - it can be beagles or bacteria. We need lots of help with topics that are interesting to women. I find that people want to edit on those things that interest them. We could work on one together! That would be fun. I'll be in touch tomorrow. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉21:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.
This month will also feature on our agenda, upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.
We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.
We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.
After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
P.S. On the weekend before the annual meeting, you can join: Action=History @ Ace Hotel (Sunday, September 24, 2017)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Signpost, Humour, Chickenz
Hi Barbara, A short fyi to let you know that I added a "Chicken" Gallery for next signpost in keeping with theme of humour. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk)18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I disagree; that doesn't look like spam to me. That her edit mentions "a company that does something" doesn't make it advertising. I think you need to AGF here. Chris Troutman (talk)16:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It is raw advertising for two academic programs, sourced only to the websites for those academic programs. Academic spam is a thing. We don't do that here per WP:PROMO which is policy. Want more examples? I have boatloads of them. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have for some time intended to write WP:Academic spam or the equivalent. For the meanwhile , see my essay, which I just now moved into WP space: WP:PR jargon I am likely to retitle it to "Detecting PR" or something of the sort. . DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
November 4
Hi Barbara, I hope you are doing well! There is an event on November 4 about the Historic Pittsburgh collection. I want to do some light Wikipedia-related stuff - I sent you an e-mail with some ideas and I'd love to have your assistance if you are able. Please have a look and let me know what you think! TheLeaper (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
TheLeaper, thanks for the notice. Are you going to the edit-a-thon on Sunday at the YWCA? I am definitely interested in the Nov 4th event. I would like to help, too. My classes are online this semester so I can fit my classes around my life rather the other way around. Email me with the details.
I won't be able to attend the YWCA edit-a-thon, but my former colleague will be there! Glad your schedule is more free this semester and I look forward to seeing you. TheLeaper (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Barbara: Wanted to add as reference to the drawing Brehms Tierleben (Small ed.). 1927. The picture is from commons. This site gives an attribution. I would doit as a WP:SFN. I would have added it myself, but you have a GOCE under constructiion template on it. i don't want to get in your way. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hello Barbara! I have three things about The Signpost 1) great work on the Humor section! soon, I might get around to handing out a Signpost barnstar. 2) several articles are in need of a CE, if you could CE, or enlist other people to, that would be great. 3) If you look at WP:FL, there have been no FL's in about a month. To fill the space, I thought we could include interesting lists in the section instead, I thought you might be interested in helping. Eddie891TalkWork12:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on WikiProject Pitsburgh/November 2017 newsletter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Pittsburgh grant proposal
Sorry about my delay in response to your request for comment at the U Pittsburgh project grant proposal. Yes I want to support somehow. I want to be positive about the project but at the same time I want to be realistic and say that the Wikimedia Foundation has always in the past declined to fund proposals like this. There are paths for compromise. I neither want to be too encouraging or discouraging, because there are ways to make this work but also I have seen people make it work but compromise too much. Perhaps if we talked by phone or video chat sometime I could summarize the stories of how I have seen other people's projects play out.
Without any ambiguity, it is easy for me to say that I want the labor output of your project and that your price point is generous for the outcomes which I know you could achieve. The money you are requesting is low. The barrier which I anticipate is just that the Wikimedia Foundation sort of has a policy to not fund these kinds of projects except under particular circumstances. If you get funding, I am in, and whatever happens, I will support you along the way. Thanks for putting yourself out there. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
User Group update
Global branches update
Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
Bytes in brief
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Hello, Barbara (WVS). A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here. If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}
Hi, I wasn't sure if you got the ping on the Graphics Lab, but I put together a proposed logo per your description. I located a few photographs to trace silhouettes and I made the elements large so it should scale down okay: (I suppose it's difficult to tell what the silhouette on the left is at this size). Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The left silhouette is recognizable to me as I have many acquaintances who have that same silhouette. Content about the health of older women is sadly deficient on WP and this logo helps to raise awareness. I've commented further on the illustration project talk page. Thank you for all that you do.
Hi, I wondered if you would be willing to weigh-in at a discussion that I am pursuing over at talk:Abortion. Note that I have been called "Berkeley" because of my other IP address. Thanks, -208.71.156.130 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I have a keen interest in this topic but I am having trouble following the conversation on the talk page. In addition, I have not been able to provide much improvement to the at this point but have established a collaboration with another medical editor to clean up the medical references in a peaceful manner. There are some very 'rabid' editors who are just waiting to block editors with whom they disagree, i.e., those politically opposed to the practice. If I think that I could help bring clarity, I would jump right in. I draw a lot of fire as it is. Please feel free to continue a discussion here on my talk page if you would like. I will do what I can. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉20:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
ps - let me know if you get blocked - I'll try to help if that happens.
Thank you
Dear Barbara: Thank you for your kind message and for the barnstar. I wish I had time to do more Wikipedia editing, but the bit that I do have time for, I try to do well. And let me thank YOU for all of your dedicated and skillful Wikipedia editing! Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Friend, thank you for your thank you! You are one of the few editors who seems to understand the importance of wikilinks. Even when I teach editing, I let the new editors know how important it is for readers to find the information they are looking for. You could write an amazing FA article (readers don't care about ratings, btw) but with no links, no one will find it or read it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉20:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. You are encouraged to change
Thank you for letting me know. I only wish I knew what you were talking about. I will change my preferences asap. People sometimes say I have a character problem...Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉10:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It's looking a bit neater in here ;) The algo parameter is the main one that controls the number of threads left on this page, it's currently set at 120 days, just change it to a smaller figure to keep fewer articles on the page. - X201 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the articles about the history of Medscape are fine to leave in the "Further reading" section. They are not listed as references but as further reading, although primary they are decent articles that provide additional information not in the article. I wouldn't add content to the article based on them unless non promotional and non controversial as they are primary. Also as a point of fact, Medscape did actually publish a peer reviewed medical journal for some time (Medline indexed) so the article should reflect that rather than "references" articles. Secondary sourcing is needed but I will look around and see what I come up with. Any objection to adding back the "Further reading" and the articles? MrBill3 (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Please, put the further reading stuff back in. If you thought it was important then I probably just didn't see its significance. How kind of you to let me know on my talk page. I often misinterpret reversions as being aggressive and you have restored my faith in 'good faith'. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I would like to have some input on what Pittsburgh topics get highlighted on the portal page. I want to incorporate suggestions given to me from others who would like to bring it up to date. How is this page maintained? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉14:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, since I am trying to revive interest in the Portal and WikiProject Pittsburgh, I might as well have a go. umm if I really mess up, can you correct my snafus? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉23:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I know nothing about Pittsburgh and don't watch any of the pages but you can ask for technical help. Note that two maintainers are listed at Portal talk:Pittsburgh. CrazyPaco is active. Marketdiamond only has five edits since 2015. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I poked around a bit and I'm pretty sure I can help out with the portal. CrazyPaco has moved away and probably won't mind the help. Thanks, Barbara (WVS)✐✉23:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Copyright
ADAM even though hosted by the US gov is not created by the US gov and thus not under an open license.[3]
Hi Barbara,
That is nice of you to give barnstars to some of the students. Whenever I identify one to flag for you, you have beat me to it!
Great idea. JenOttawa (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that it might help because I am not involved in the course work. I was astounded at the student edits to PTSD. What skill and ability to avoid potential conflicts with other editors! I couldn't have done a better job myself.
Hey, Barbara. You know how much Jytdog thinks he needs to poke you. Please ignore that. What he means to communicate is that (assuming you didn't already know), Wikipedia has grown tired with edit warring over a variety of different subjects and has limited that editing by creating discretionary sanctions, which means editing in that area can essentially get you blocked with no warning. They even did that for all BLPs. So, when you edit in those areas, just be sure you don't violate policy. Sometimes it's best to walk away from editing rather than get stuck in some drama. I thought I had asked Jytdog to stay off your talk page and take it to me but somehow that message didn't come across. Chris Troutman (talk)00:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. I don't recall editing the abortion article. I just checked - I've made no edits to it. Perhaps the confusion is in reference to miscarriage. Its alternative title is spontaneous abortion. Miscarriage shouldn't be a contentious topic as far as I can figure out. No one hates edit warring more than I do. Most of the references I added to PTSD were from the article I created Miscarriage and grief a topic with no clinical content. This article describes grief rather than the 'event' of miscarriage. Your insight is always valuable and appreciated. I surely plan on walking away from adding references to the PTSD article and regret that it less informative because of the content that was deleted. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉00:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
A notice of discretionary sanctions doesn't count as templating the regulars. It is a required part of the DS process. Discretionary sanctions can't be enforced against an editor who has not been formally notified of them. (Also, such a notification does not imply that an editor has done anything wrong, only that the editor has been operating in an area that is subject to DS.) Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this Looie496. What you have explained makes sense. Except that I have made no edits to the Abortion article. Nor can I remember any other connections to the topic that I have edited. Miscarriage is also called spontaneous abortion and perhaps that is what earned me the warning. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉03:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You have added content to at least three articles in which you added content about induced abortion. You know that you have done this. You are also aware of DS by now and how they work - they cover the topic everywhere in WP not just the specific named article. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You already know how the community interprets DS and other topic-based sanctions. The warning was valid when I gave, it, as you already know. Thanks for letting me know about the new editing. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I really have no experience with 'DS' - I've only been blocked (as Bfpage). The template looks pretty scary so I'm pretty sure it is probably something that I want to avoid. I've found more content about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion but haven't decided where I will add it - At this point since the topic of induced abortion is pretty much already written I might just end up adding MEDRs citations. You might be a little intense over this and other topics since your interactions with me seem a bit aggressive. I would suggest an assumption of good faith related to my editing and content creation. When we worked together on MRSA, the article was vastly improved because of our collaboration. Take a deep breath and enjoy the encyclopedia. Best Regards to you Jytdog, Barbara (WVS)✐✉13:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I am well aware that we can work productively together; you do some great stuff here. With regard to DS, you have been given alerts so that you can inform yourself of the situation. Things go best when we all use high quality sources and summarize them neutrally. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm printing out the above comment, framing it and staring at for a long time. No one has ever said on a talk page, ever, that I do some great stuff here. Thank you, The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉00:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
...out of your Signpost contribution, which I volunteered to edit. Took me a minute to figure out what was going on; I hope the readers "get it". By the way you might find this insightful. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your copy editing of the piece. How do you think I could make the piece easier to figure out? I always have the most fun with the images. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉13:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for not getting back to this ... holidays and everything. There are some comments at the article, about what would be expected: some critical that somebody else didn't fix the articles, some understood the humor. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think. I will look at the doi from now on. I never heard of predatory journals before but I guess it makes sense that someone would take advantage of those desperate to publish their work. Is there a list somewhere? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉19:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Barbara (WVS) - I pinged you on your TP because my response is sorta buried up here in an older exchange. If you're anything at all like me about finding stuff on a busy TP, the ping may help you find it. I'm not sure if you ever got the name of a list, so here is one that Guy mentioned in his edit summary for removing a source in an article on my watchlist - - hope it helps.Atsme📞📧11:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Bad journals
Can of worms, Barbara! The canonical source was Jeffrey Beall but he took his list down due to legal thuggery. There are numerous mirrors, and there's also a whitelist at http://www.doaj.org.
My page at User:JzG/Predatory has a search box, but there are false positives and some journals that are missing. The web domain is the most reliable search term. A few have DOI roots, most do not.
Standard red flags are if you visit the journal homepage and it gives an impact metric other than h-index or http://www.scijournal.org/ - there are fake journal rankings, too (see Impact factor § Counterfeit), and some say they are indexed and give a list of non-discriminating indexes, I have even seen fake indexes used. In the main, though, if it shows up in DOAJ or Clarivate and has a valid impact factor above 1, it's normally kosher. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to keep ignoring me when I point out issues with your edits to this article, we are going to have a problem. When an editor has an issue with your edits and reverts you and brings the matter to the talk page, you do not simply keep editing and reverting. Given our tempestuous history with each other, and that this article was a part of that history, you should know better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I consider our effort on this article to be collaboration. We both are working to make the article better. It is our article. I don't own it and neither does any other editor. I don't see the problem. There are some grammar issues that don't need consensus along with the addition of relevant and more comprehensive content and review article references. I am not ignoring you. I am occupied with reading this review article on about vaginal anatomy and don't even realize that something is there to see. Reading your talk page essays and responding eats up valuable time which is better spent inserting updated and relevant content. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
He replied on the article talk page. The comment on my talk page is for me personally. So regarding this, why would you think I should ping you, given the nature of my comment? All that I would get in return is you being dismissive and/or passive-aggressive again. Furthermore, you never apologized for or took responsibility for what you did. And if you do it again, we will find ourselves right back at WP:ANI. I mean, why are you even looking at my talk page? Do you think I keep up with yours? You watching me in any form was one of the main issues because it led to you following me and so on. If you want more pleasant interactions between us, the work is mostly on your side because goodness knows I've tried. And the work on your side must absolutely not involve you following me again and doing what you did before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Listen, it isn't that sinister of a thing to do a search to see if Tom LT had somehow responded to your request for some oversight of the edits to the microanatomy section of the Vagina article. That's it. Nothing more or nothing less. I am/was sincerely interested in if he had a chance to respond to your request since I am prepared to listen to what he has to say about the matter. I respect his opinion and I respect your opinion. I don't mind if you keep up on my talk page. I am not dismissing you and I don't intend to be passive-agressive. I apologize for all the offenses that I have committed against you and assume full responsibility for my actions. As for ANI, that would be okay, I am sure we would both learn something from the process but I would rather not take up their time. I am not following you and I apologize if I have made you uncomfortable. I am not keeping up with you and I am not watching you. We are both collaboratively working on articles together. If the work is mostly on my side, then I intend to put in as much as it takes to work collaboratively with you and all editors. It can work for both of us and will be an example on we can improve WP together even if we never meet for tea and crumpets.
I noted in the "Keratinized" section on the article talk page that Tom had replied, and I did provide a link. So I certainly was open about what I stated on my talk page. I'm not sure why you think I needed to ping you to that section on my talk page, but it is bad practice to ping an editor to a section on one's talk page when one is complaining about that editor, unless, of course, it is actually thought that the discussion will be productive. I know from history that it will not be productive when it comes to me noting my issues with you. As for dismissing me, it is more about you being dismissive in general, which I already made abundantly clear on the article talk page. You are often stubborn and dismissive of whatever literature you are being informed on when it is being made clear to you that you are wrong. And you are especially like this if it is me doing the informing. Stating "ok....umm wow. You spend too much time on talk pages. It takes me ten minutes to go through your essay. I'm not even going to read them any more. I find your edit summaries more useful." is being dismissive. Clearly. As for WP:ANI and your statement that "we are both collaboratively working on articles together," you make it sound like you will be following me again or will again suddenly start popping up at articles I heavily edit. Why else would I need to take you to WP:ANI for a third time? I am editing one article that you are also editing, and that is challenging enough. I don't need even more interactions with you. You were admonished both times I took you to WP:ANI, and you were blocked the second time. So given that, and my significant experience with how things work at WP:ANI, there is nothing I need to learn from WP:ANI, but it is clear that you still very much need to learn. So you can consider my above comment a warning. If you yet again suddenly start popping up at articles I heavily edit, it will be clear to everyone that it is the result of this discussion and that your intent is to annoy (which is expressly forbidden per WP:Hounding). If you want another trip down WP:ANI lane to hopefully learn something this time, I will have to oblige. Your sweet demeanor (which is indeed at times passive-aggressive) did not help your case before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I will do my best to refrain from dismissing you and not be dismissive in general. I don't intend to be stubborn or dismissive. I still believe that it can be productive in noting your issues with me. I apologize for treating you dismissively on the talk page referenced above. That was not very kind. I will not be following up on you. I do not intend to suddenly pop up at articles you heavily edit. We both work on topics related to women's health, a topic, like you, I am very passionate about. It may be a challenge working with me, and I apologize for that also. There are more things that I don't know about editing and WP than I do and will freely admit this as it comes to my attention. I will consider your comments above to be a warning. I still intend on editing articles having to do with women's health, anatomy, medications, pathologies, biochemistry, conditions, treatments and reproduction. This shouldn't be considered 'popping up' though I am not exactly sure what you mean by this since I don't follow you around. Despite our differences, I sincerely believe that I will be able to contribute content and references that will improve these and other topics. I take your warning seriously. I do not intend to annoy you. If anyone else has any suggestions on how to handle this situation, please leave comments here. Best Regards. Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas19:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Barbara, you pretty much stated the same thing in the past. You attributed following me to the both of us having an interest in the aforementioned topics and my use of WP:STiki. But you only took an interest in those topics because of me. And, yes, you stated this. And my WP:STiki edits did not account for the fact that you were obviously following me. Editors recognized that you were following me and acting inappropriately (such as the barnstar thing). Also, after your block and after your editing restrictions expired, you stayed away from the articles I heavily edit. That recently changed with you editing the Vagina article, even after you had recently indicated that you would not be editing it much. So, yes, I will not consider it to be coincidences if you suddenly pop up at other articles I heavily edit. Such occurrences cannot be attributed to anything other than this discussion. We don't have that many topics in common, really, which also lends evidence to my case. I focus on a set of articles, and edit other articles occasionally or sparingly. So when the set of articles I focus on are targeted by an editor I have issues with, the stalking is very evident. I have been stalked a number of times, and it obviously is unpleasant. What you did back in 2015 is something I have not quite been able to get over since we continue to clash at times in the aforementioned ways. I am trying, though. There will hopefully be a day when we can work together peacefully. When I have an issue with an edit you make, I truly am not trying to be rude to you. I hope you keep that in mind -- that my concern is really for whatever article is the subject of discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I do feel badly that you still feel badly about past clashes. I am not stalking you. You want to know what really happens when I edit? It's like this: I find an amazing reference that contains great information that would benefit a lot of articles. Thus, as I had been working on childbirth and breastfeeding topics, I found lots of great info related to the anatomy and physiology of the Vagina. I'm working on breastfeeding - which leads to Nipple - which leads to Breast - which leads to Lactation - which leads to Latch - which leads me to HIV and breastfeeding which leads to STI...which leads to ..... That is the connection - and as significant and prolific your editing is, I am not stalking you. You are pretty darn important, but not worth stalking (I mean this as a compliment). Also, I loved using STIKI but it didn't work for me because I couldn't go 'back' to place welcome templates or warnings on potential vandal's pages. The reversion happened and POOF! I was whisked away to another change to review. I switched to another script that worked better so that I could use different warnings on user pages and even correct some of the errors. That is the story. I hope you keep in mind -- that my concern is for the article AND for your continued editing. You aren't being accused of being rude. BTW, if you need a journal article and I can download it to send to you if you would like. I've offered on the proj med talk page but no one responded. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas20:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I did not state that you are still stalking me or that you are stalking me again. Still stalking/hounding me is not the issue now, since it has not happened...yet. What I recently stated to you on the article talk page is the issue. Given what I've stated to you times before and above, it does not feel like you are truly listening. You certainly are still refusing to admit that you stalked me before, despite all evidence to the contrary and your own admittance that you looked at my edits and articles I worked on, became interested in and wanted to improve upon my work. I'm not going to provide all the diffs to the past here on your talk page; it would not be helpful anyway. And the barnstar thing speaks volumes on its own. Stating that I am "pretty darn important, but not worth stalking" neglects the fact that you indeed stalked me before. And your refusal to admit that you stalked me and properly apologize for it is just one reason that I remain frustrated with you. I understand about your editing pattern today (I've seen it), but that was not the case back then. And your editing pattern today cannot be used as justification for suddenly throwing yourself back into my orbit; so if it happens (and I'm discounting the Vagina article), what I stated about WP:ANI remains. I see no reason to keep discussing this. We pretty much keep having the same discussion over and over again, and this is why I do not find discussing these matters with you to be productive. It is why I will not ping you if noting my problems with you...unless it's on the article talk page or WP:ANI. I know I'm not being accused of being rude, but when you get defensive about me correcting you on stuff and/or reverting you, that's going to lead me to state that I'm not correcting (and/or reverting) you to be rude. I'm not correcting you (and/or reverting you) to be condescending. But, again, we've already been over this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
And so that you know that I do appreciate some edits you make, I will state that some of your additions to the Vagina article have improved it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Barbara, Your Christmas message seems to be missing a closure. Yngvadottir's page looked like this until I added |}. You might like to tweak any other copies of your message? PamD14:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Though 'amazing' might not be the first thing that comes to mind when I ponder my place in the universe, I appreciate the possibility. Hey let's do lunch. Do you like the co-op? Or I can bring lunch. Or we can jump someone and take their lunch away from them. We'll discuss collaboration and article improvement (just so that I don't get accused of socializing on my talk page). Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas00:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Barbara, comments like this belong on Talk:Vagina, where other editors can assess. The Vagina currently has a brief mention of cystocele that I added. Why does the article need more than that brief mention? Why should it be given more detail than urinary incontinence, rectocele and stress, which are also related to aging and childbirth? I am going for WP:Summary style for sections in the article unless whatever content in question does not have its own Wikipedia article and needs more room in the Vagina article than other stuff because of that. Anyway, I will post your message at Talk:Vagina. And I see that Doc James has also edited the Cystocele article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
One day I'll bet your piano will someday be crushed by your barnstars and then crash down into the apartment below. I'll be here for you when that happens, holding your hand, waiting for the insurance adjuster to arrive to assess the damage. Why don't you help me write a humorous article about barnstars? It would be fun! Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
article asking for expert Comedy attention
Greetings Barbara, Today while doing cleanup of Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 20 I found an article, Prick (slang) tagged for needing expert attention for Comedy. At first glance, I don't see anything controversial and am wondering if the tag can be removed? Seeing your Signpost contributions for Humour maybe you could give this article the "once-over". Thanks. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk)22:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk. I will remove the tag but I don't use such naughty words (outloud or in print, though it crosses my mind occasionally). Now I have got to find out what other pages this template appears upon. What fun! I added the template to the draft of the next humour article. It looks good. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas23:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't anything about a hard space and don't understand its significance. I don't get any error messages in Visual Editor - that would be nice. Even syntax highlighting in the editing window can't tell me the proper use of spacing. My personal standard is making the article so that it reads well and not necessarily making sure the coding is acceptable. Maybe that makes a bad editor, I don't know. It never occurs to me to ever check anyone's use of spacing. Anyone with a AWB can come by and tidy up the coding. Not everyone can create medical articles and cite them well (not perfectly, of course. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas22:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Barbara (WVS), may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Barbara (WVS), may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk)22:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Stay calm and maintain a professional demeanor. Be patient and remain courteous and civil.
Avoid conflict, even when you know you are right. Give other editors the benefit of the doubt.
Assume good faith toward your collaborating editors, if not their edits. Assuming good faith is not intended to be self-destructive, but to avoid conflict.
Ignore attacks. Not easily done, but a real timesaver. Attacks and counter-attacks are hazardous to your mental health. The best and most frequently offered administrative advice is to move on, and, if absolutely necessary, return the next day.
Don't take it personally. Editors make honest mistakes. Communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet.
Don't isolate your interpretation. There are many interpretations other than yours. What you read might NOT be what was meant.
Don't think of editing as a competition. WE are cohorts, collaborating to improve our thing.
Don't edit when angry or upset. Stay off the article and talk page in question. Never let your anger or frustration be the deciding factor in your behavior.
Don't forget the human dimension of Wikipedia editing. Keep things in perspective. There is a real, living and breathing, sensitive human on the other side of the discussion.
Thank you so much for the HNY, I don't deserve it. I enjoy our interactions and have always been impressed with your 'wisdom' Thanks for everything. Best regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 22:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Ha! It is pretty spammy. And the picture captions are pretty funny too. Well there goes that idea for a new article. It's better hearing it from you than to have a smart-* leave in the comment section of the Signpost article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas00:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
An overwhelming 4 page views per day...
Geohumour
There is a mysterious beauty to the Pacific Northwest few people can fully appreciate
The list of references is longer than the article itself.
Naegleriasis
Naegleriasis is 95% fatal but "You'd have to have water going way up in your nose to begin with". So here's hoping that you keep your nose dry in the new year. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm replacing the image that you shared with me. It's not so busy. The lady in the image has an definite resemblance to moi. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 20:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
