Well, of course some help is welcome! Specially that once Andrew.g's data fell, there was also the extra work of going through the WMF tool a lot to compile 25 entries. (the lack of people to write the reports - some are MIA, others stopped answering - is another deal entirely) Anything to make this easier and recall the good days where the Report could be done early in the week. igordebraga≠22:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Igordebraga great! This report should now be updating with fresh daily counts (for the previous day) every day at around 17:00 UTC. I believe that soon I should be able to update the report so that it gives weekly counts, like Popular Pages did. I'll update you on my progress there; I might even be able to get it done this week. Cheers, J-Mo23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this supports a variable time range, I think it would be nice to have a report for the entire prior month in the WP:Signpost. It has been forced to use weekly lists in the past. See this discussion. Thanks. MB22:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Igordebraga I'm finally getting a chance to look into this. Some weird error with the pageview API. Will update when I have a fix or at least a better sense of the issue :) Cheers, J-Mo19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Igordebraga Fixed! The report is running again. Thanks for letting me know it went down; sorry it took so long to get it running again. Cheers, J-Mo20:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
@Scarpy:, yeah, I know. It's a strange error, and I haven't figured it out yet. Something to do with permissions on ToolForge, not my code (for once!). I'll post here and the "Top 25" thread above--which is the same issue--once I have a solution. Cheers, J-Mo23:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: Fixed! The report is running again. Thanks for letting me know it went down; don't hesitate to nudge me again if that happens again in the future. Cheers, J-Mo20:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your bot directed me to your page :) I am fairly new to editing this big wiki (although I wrote some at my university) and I am up to become a translator one day, and I am interested in translating articles to make more information accessible for people. And I am kind of nervous in case I forget about sources and links and citations. I hope I am not bothering you with that question, but do you have any tips for translating and editing articles? And I had a look at your user page, I really admire all the work you put in. And I will gladly participate in the tea house :) (And, in case you didn't notice, I haven't found a chat function yet, as I'm quite blind to hidden options). Best wishes, Seal TheSealOfApproval (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J-Mo, hope you are doing well. I received a message from HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts on my user-talk page. They advised me to communicate with a senior editor like you to fetch more guidance and understanding about wikipedia rules, polices and procedures. I am quite new here and I have observed one thing that people who create new pages wait so long for approval of their page. Why it happens? Why so much delay? And yes, one more question. Do you have authority to approve a page? RedMiNote (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RedMiNote I don't edit very much these days, so I'm not the best person to turn to for advice about how to get an article published after other editors have flagged the article as having issues with neutral point of view and reliable sources. The draft review of your Draft:Farhan_Wilayat article provides some good advice on next steps you could take to improve this draft before re-submitting it for review. Why not start there? Unfortunately no one person can guarantee that an article will be published on, or remain on, Wikipedia. That's a critical part of what helps keep Wikipedia reliable and trustworthy! However, I know very well that it can be very difficult to figure out the rules--both written and unwritten. My advice to you is to take a break from the article for a while and find some other articles where you can make contributions (ideally, small contributions like adding reliable sources, to articles on a different topic than your current focus). Then when you feel like you have a better handle on the rules around neutral point of view and reliable sources, make another attempt to improve the Farhan Wilayat article. I hope that helps! J-Mo18:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I had received a message on my talk page from your bot, I didn't quite understand what it meant, could you please throw some light on this?
GuyForceOne (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh! I didn't realize that. I had accidentally stumbled upon your message after posting a question. I thought it was an invitation to become a teahouse host until I read the host criteria. Thanks!GFO (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Surender Dahiya until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User talk:JacobCardel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://you-iq-test.com/ru/intelligence-part-iv/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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 deleted 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.
Overall
Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebroxnoted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthonypointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"
(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)
A niggle about Hostbot
One thing that’s annoyed me with Hostbot is when it posts a Teahouse welcome to a new user who clearly has malicious intent [1]. It can make the user talk seem a bit silly [2], and it can be disheartening to those who patrol recent pages to reduce vandalism. Granted, Hostbot does a host of good, and as an RCP, my view of the results is myopic and magnified. I looked up the criteria the bot uses, and it does take into account warnings that the user might have received. You wouldn’t want to lower the threshold there. Some new users edit in good faith, yet attract nasty warnings, so a Teahouse welcome is just what’s needed, reaching out where their hand has been bitten.
“Bring me solutions, not problems!” I wish I could. It’s a fine line. And it’s been quite a while since I’ve coded. I understand that now, there are neural networks with massive numbers of layers that can automatically arrive at a decision that would closely match that of a human. Just an idea for if you’ve got a bit of spare time to devote to this vexing problem. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Willondon! Thanks for the ping. First: yes, you should definitely feel free to remove the Teahouse invite from users' talkpages at your discretion. Second: yeah, you've done a good job articulating the various tradeoffs that I try to navigate with HostBot. I'm always looking for new options for identifying bad-faith users to skip--without throwing out too many of the good-faith newbie babies with the bathwater, as it were. ML could definitely help. I don't have that expertise, but the idea of using the ORES API to build "risk scores" for invite candidates has been on my radar for years; just haven't gotten around to implementing it yet ;) Perhaps this Christmas vacation! Anyway, thanks again and feel free to continue providing feedback and topics for discussion--it's always useful and relevant! Cheers, J-Mo18:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 deleted 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. Theroadislong (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bots Newsletter, January 2022
Bots Newsletter, January 2022
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.
Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.
Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
January 2020
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.
A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.
May 2020
We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
Nobody slapped you in the first place, so there's no point to cry wolf when there is none. Being a regular editor doesn't mean that you are exonerated from being warned for making mistakes, whether intentionally or inadvertently. I already explained the reason for reverting your edit, so there's not much to add. GenoV84 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those 'you've been reverted' templates are pretty unfriendly! Only appropriate for people who were probably vandalizing and who you don't expect to respond. – SJ +21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cataloging anti-vax RS discussions
Hello :) Thanks for the list of VSN orgs. Do you have time for a chat about ways to catalog past RS discussions about suspect vaccine [dis]info? I'm working on a project that could help + produce as one output a perennial-sources overview. – SJ +21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sj sure, happy to chat. For context, I originally passed along the VSN org list at the beginning of the pandemic, because I was alerted to it when talking to a researcher who went on to give a WMF Research Showcase. I left WMF shortly after that, and I don't know (or at least, don't recall well) where the list came from or how it was assembled. That said, what were you thinking? Feel free to reach out over email (faster reply, and you should have my email from my recent-ish post to Wikimedia-l), or here. Cheers, J-Mo19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll write :) I'm mainly thinking of a perennial sources table for vaccine sources and articles. I notice that that 2019 summary from VSN wasn't updated in place, and don't see a continuous-update version from them (though they seem to have a refdesk service)
A lot of the antivax arguments are the same over the decades (aids, autism, zika, covid, mmr, &c), but we don't seem to have a single place for perennial arguments / perennial sources around this. I've been finding this is a challenge even for professional journal editors, and it's often single high-visibility articles from otherwise plausible sources. (I think this is true for statistical cognitive biases and conspiracy theories in general: important to track for shared understanding, but harder than just source-site-reliability eval.) – SJ +21:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the Seattle area?
We are resumingSeattle monthly meetupsonTuesday, May 17, 2022, 5:45pm to 7:45pm at the Distant Worlds Coffeehouse. For the address and to RSVP, please clickhere.
User:YttriumShrew I don't, but I can check on it. I don't have as much time to maintain HostBot as I used to, so issues have been piling up. I've started to look for a new/additional maintainer. J-Mo19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtmorgan: I remember you gave me specs awhile ago? It was mostly some amount of storage and bandwidth? Or is it other issues that are creeping up that you need debugging and dev help with? - Scarpy (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 deleted 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interview for my Thesis?
you seem like a cool guy
Hi Jtmorgan, I hope you're doing well. I am working on a capstone documentary research project and I’d like to interview you. I think Wikipedia is simultaneously so powerful yet so often misunderstood, therefore I would love to explore and share the stories and perspectives of people like you that might help the world see Wikipedia through a more nuanced lens. Furthermore, I’m also excited about what I personally might learn from you! If you're interested, please let me know at cpkirkpatrick@gmail.com! Best, Colin :) Benddontbreak (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Khandayat article is looking like a propaganda. The editor intensionally relating gouda caste with khandayat. Gouda has no connection with khandayat. I have written this in talk page. And there is no response to that. The article is locked. I can many source that says about khandayat. Chasa is the origin and subcaste of khandayat. Books and articles are- Generology of paika rebellion by Japanese writer Akio tanabe, Peasant militia of odisha by prasant Pradhan. God, people and caste system by LK mahapatra, Cuttack Gazetteer by civil servant Tara Dutta, tribe and caste of odisha and Bengal by british civil servant HH risely . Pls reserch on this. Sekharblack123 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
March 2023 Seattle meetup
In the Seattle area? We are resuming Seattle monthly meetups on Tuesday, March 21, 2022, 5:45pm to 7:45pm at the Distant Worlds Coffeehouse as they have resumed their normal operating hours at their new location. For the address and to RSVP, please click here.
04:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
HostBot
Hello, Jtmorgan,
I was noticing that I no longer see Teahouse invitations on the talk pages of new editors, at least not for the past few years. Then I came across one from 2021 and saw that your bot used to post them but is no longer active. Could you start it up again? These welcome messages are very useful and effective for editors just joining the project. If not, can you recommend that another bot operator set up a bot to post these notices? Thank you for considering this request. LizRead!Talk!17:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz! Sorry for the delayed reply--I'm not around much anymore. I had to stop maintaining HostBot when life got in the way. I have a friend who has said he might be interested in getting the bot up and running again. He has some time free in July and is a much better programmer than me anyway. I'll post here if it looks like he might be willing to take on the care and feeding of HostBot. Hope all is well in your world! Cheers, J-Mo16:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jtmorgan. It's work was so useful, greeting new editors, I hope your friend will take on being the bot operator. Thanks for the reply. LizRead!Talk!02:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When: Saturday, June 17, 10am–3pm & Sunday, June 18, noon–5pm Where: University Branch of the Seattle Public Library (SPL) Who: Everyone is welcome. What to bring: A laptop and power cord
01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Tuesday March 19 2024 6pm – 8pm (PDT), March monthly meetup, Little Oddfellows Café—new location!!!
Since our previous meeting place, Distant Worlds Café, now closes at 6:30pm, we will meet this month at Little Oddfellows café inside of Elliott Bay Book Company in Capitol Hill.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Draft:K-Y-S-NlGGER-KlKE, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is an "attack page" or an unsourced biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity, or articles about living people that are entirely negative and unsourced. Attack pages, attack files and negative unreferenced BLPs are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing
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 deleted 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. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle Wikipedia Day, January 11, 2025
Seattle Wikipedia Day
Saturday afternoon, January 11, from 1:00–4:30pm PT at the Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Branch Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle/Invitees list.
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped_to_40%25).jpg){kind=small}
_shown_in_her_laboratory_in_1947.jpg)
