User talk:Jbhunley

User page Talk page Dashboard Scratchpad Templates Sandbox Workspace

Talk page Nice things people have left me Sanctions I am aware of
DS and GS notices logged here

There is a User:JBH that made 25 edits back in 2005. I have no relation to that user.

Click HERE to start a new section below.

Precious

"Let's just leave it as is and avoid complications"

Thank you for quality articles such as Innocenzo Leonelli, for sifting new pages for nonsense and assessing, for welcoming new users and offering them your "quick and dirty introduction" to talk page editing, for adding refs, removing tags, for proposing tban before indef, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow! Thank you very, very much! Jbh ^Talk 22:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, love smileys. Don't miss my talk today, happens to be first edit day, and I decorated ;) - Imagine you were a candidate for arbitration, there was one question the last round. What would you have said? (Just for curiosity, I won't change my vote.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I assume you mean 'a candidate for ArbCom' rather than 'a candidate for arbitration' although... . Jests aside I agree with some of the specifics; a second bite at the close that was adjusting some aspect 'upon further reflection' would, in general, be OK only if the outcome stayed of the same magnitude e.g. making ban conditions more specific, maybe adding an editing restriction on the expiration of a medium/long term block, etc. However essentially vacating one's own close in order to open an ArbCom case oneself seems like a bad call to me. I also agree with her comments on Civility templating – I would go further and say use such a template should be curtailed. If one needs to remind someone to be civil then one should use one's own words. Templating someone in that situation is just going to escalate things. Taking a break before responding is good advice as well but there are several situations where that will probably not result in an outcome which is considered appropriate to, potentially, anyone. As would always 'letting it slide'.

Where I disagree with her is the assertion that there is really any consensus that "white-collar office politesse" is really a baseline even among white-collar Americans, much less our British and Indian colleagues. I address this difference a bit in a comment I made at AN about 'forced apologies' [1].

Civility, in the context of Wikipedia, can, partly, be seen as a collection of rules which prescribe the boundaries within which it is OK to express one's frustration, anger or manage conflict with others. In the context of inter-personal conflicts, it is possible for a bad actor to 'weaponize' civility norms as well. Defining it and adjudicating it on Wikipedia has been difficult because, like so many other social norms the rules and expectations are mostly unwritten and based upon and based upon the society/culture one lives within. In the case of a 'white-collar office' those norms have evolved over time and each new member assimilates the common baseline shared and enforced by all. Wikipedia has only the most rudimentary baseline with uneven social/actual sanctions for violating even that. The missing parts of what baseline there is becomes filled by the values of either the values an editor formed elsewhere, by the values of a charismatic individual present in a given group/time or through mutually re-enforced virtue-signaling. All of this prevents the promulgation of a consistent set of norms across the project other than of the most rudimentary sort and often they fall prey to situational effects.

If anyone is interested I may consider expanding that brief discussion of apologies into civility on Wikipedia in general although it boils down to the idea that, even if we could come to an agreement about a baseline the continued churn of editors with different social and cultural norms would make policing it impossible – assuming we do not want some draconian, authoritarian enforcement regime. Although I would beg your indulgence to wait until after my RfA as I am positive any such writings by me would be seen as self-serving, inflammatory or, more likely, both.

Ah… almost forgot. From a procedural point of view I would have declined because 1) the admin who brought the case was taking not only a second bite at the apple but was biting a whole different apple; 2) the requesting admin said they 'were requesting the case to "save" the editor from a possible community indef so, as OR said, the community had not exhausted all options for resolution; and 3) from the initial case request the complaint does not seem suitable to use as a vehicle for attempting to sort out the "civility" issue.

More than I meant to write and probably more than you expected but the writing was relaxing... Jbh ^Talk 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, - right, much more than a simple yes or no, but all good if relaxing. - Civility is such a tricky thing, - one of the things I found hurtful came in form of a barnstar, - I stubbornly leave it on my talk ;) - Once I told a user who found it difficult to apologize how he perhaps could, he then did, and the bystanders didn't think it was sincere, - I won't do that again. - Back to writing about music. Don't miss the video of the singer who said "Sometimes, particularly with a piece as radical as 'Le Grand Macabre', there is the space to stand up for what we believe in and to connect it to our times." (also on my talk, next to the lead pic that I took). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1989 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Back?

It's good to see you pop up on my watchlist again, Jbhunley. Can we hope to see you return to full activity? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the note! I'll probably be around a bit more. Maybe stick my head in at AfD and NPP some -- really just depends on time, motivation etc. Jbh ^Talk 18:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. I always find content work to be the easiest when I'm low on motivation; but of course, it's different for everyone. Hope to see you around. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks Jbh for your contribution to the Fram workshop! :) starship.paint (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice

to see you back and here's hoping for your prolonged stay :-) ∯WBG^converse 15:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jbh ^Talk 18:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat

You left the comment The sources seem to be more nuanced than this. They relate to what seems to be a libel case where some Facebook comments were allowed to remain and others were not. A Portuguese speaker should review the sources to ensure NPOV/BLP. If you don't speak Portuguese why don't you refrain from making such judgments? The first source already in its title says "Médico Barakat perde pedido judicial movido contra o cantor Netinho" - "Doctor Barakat loses legal request against singer Netinho" [2] and the second one describes that the singer does not have to pay damages for pain and suffering. [3] Omikroergosum (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page of the draft, where I see you have also left a comment. It is best to keep these discussions centralized and within the article's history. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 22:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting you write this here and then pester me on my talk page with a seemingly authoritative message even though you pointed out yourself when I complained about you in the administrators' noticeboard that you are not even an administrator? Omikroergosum (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

...and you obviously did not read the notice. See Arbcom discretionary sanctions. The notice is to inform you of the existence of those sanctions. The format, {{ds/alert}}, is required.

Your best solution, is to consider what several experienced editors have told you. Then, if you want, re-write the article and submit it to WP:AFC by following the instructions at the top of the draft. I can say, from seeing a similar process unfold scores of times, that your current approach -- simply complaining rather than addressing the issues -- will not work. In most cases such a strategy ends in revocation of editing privileges.

I do hope that does not occur. There probably are enough independent reliable sources to write a policy compliant article on this subject. So... working on that is much more likely to get the article published. Jbh ^Talk 23:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You did not point me to any arbcom discretionary sanctions that affect my editing nor did you ever specify your complaint about a very well sourced article but just left an aggressive warning that appears authoritative even though as you use in your own defense you are not even an administrator. Several administrators have already decided to speedily keep the article, restored it and argued the negative content is well sourced. If you disagree, defend your arguments in a proper deletion discussion and stop pestering other users, threatening others and using condescending language. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

Very happy to see your name on my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Good to be back. Jbh ^Talk 22:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi! I noticed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision that when you look at the table of contents one entry has prominence over the others because it has a subsection. My concern is that this will open the floodgates and encourage some of our more hotheaded editors to insert multiple subsections, try to make their points in subsection titles, etc. I really think that the basic plan of having each person make their point in the text instead of the header is a good one. Could I persuade you to edit your section so that it has the same "Comments by..." format in the table of contents as all of the others? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I appreciate your position but I feel that the Arbs really are not listening to anyone there, not about the fundamental changes they are making in our community governance at least Possibly the only way to get them to read something on that talk page, now that it has 55 "Comments by" sections is if people start using sub-headings as 'elevator pitches'. In truth, I doubt even that will work but I guess what I am saying is while the clerks can change what they want, in this case part of my decision to use a sub-heading was to encourage their use to highlight new points, arguments and information. Jbh ^Talk 15:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I hope they listen. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• How does one go about securing a $100/hour position writing articles on Wikipedia? Is it a patronage appointment basically? –xeno^talk 10:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: That is the question. The numbers come from the 'Budget' section of this document. How long the paid program went on is an open question however on p.54 of the APC's 2017-2918 Annual Report many of the same people in the tender are being mentioned as still doing work on Wikipedia,

There has also been mention of funding for a trip or trips from Australia to Europe to cover Paralympic games. I am unclear on the details though.It has been mentioned that the tickets were for a prize in some article writing competition that were not awarded but rather used; or through a grant request to the Foundation; or that the people paid their own way. I do not know which if any of those is true. I have, however, formed the opinion that, in general, people are making money and trips using Foundation money in ways that look... ummm... sketchy. I suspect, but do not know, that should the Foundation grant process and travel funding be examined by outside parties that they may not be able to readily understand the rational behind the funding decisions being made.

The OUTING skirting summary [4] posted on the PD talk page gives what, in my opinion, is a fair summary of why there is an appearance of impropriety relating to the LH portions of FRAMGATE. Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sketchy doesn’t really capture it. The whole thing seems rotten to the core, with some users impLicated that I did not expect. Have you considered filing a case request? ^{The allegation of} Users and staff (some rather high ranking) acting in a secret bloc to support a paid editing endeavour should be receiving direct scrutiny. –xeno^talk 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ^{14:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)}

@Xeno: I agree that the problems are both longstanding and deep rooted. Courcells, our just resigned arb, was a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket which was brought by Laura Hale about another editor who was 'picking on her edits/DYK'. In this case we see many of the players in the APC job. Interestingly, if you look on the evidence page you will see that Fluffernutter (Now with T&S and with a well known COI re Courcells) "created a timeline" that is now deleted. (It is a sandbox link so I do not think its deletion nefarious) So there is direct evidence that both a member of Arbcom and a member of T&S were aware of the issues surrounding LH's editing as far back as 2011. I have not read the case through so I can not comment on nuance.

I posted Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for reversal of vanishing &/ ban by motion. I do not know that I would be up for bringing a full case about the APC editors for a few reasons: It would be a "principled stand" since I am not directly involved and last time I did that I got hammered for it; I do not think the community cares and I do not believe Arbcom capable of dealing with the matter (See my prev re "hammered"); Much of the evidence could run afoul the changed WP:HARASSMENT policy since it requires 'digging' on not enwiki Wikimedia sites and then material linked from there; There is a large chance I would not be able to sustain the effort for the time needed - just an unpredictable limitation I've learned to live with.

That said I'm still looking and I intend to participate should a case be brought. The issues I have seen exposed in FRAMGATE seem to be to be fundamental to the health and good running of the project. Regrettably I do not think we are healthy or well run enough to deal with the problems. I have tried to change that and I'll probably try again because I believe the ideal of Wikipedia is a good one.

Also, there are almost definitely people with good intentions, both on and off Wikipedia, who were involved in the APC project and were completely unaware of the problems on enwp or even what kinds of behavior would be problematic. Any presentation of this matter would need to be sensitive to that. Jbh ^Talk 15:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is all very disturbing. Like Guy Macon, I am extremely concerned about where the money goes, particularly as the donations are generated by volunteer free labour. The Signpost is probably the place where such issues can be laid open for examination but it would first require some in-depth investigative journalism. Smallbones? Bri? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I am not sure how much was Foundation money vs APC money vs Australian federal/education grants. I suspect there is Foundation money involved. Any investigation into money is sensitive. Denoting the line between "sketchy", "unethical", "malfeasance" and "criminal" is difficult. Each has an appropriate venue and investigative techniques. I have found and/or seen enough information to have formed the opinion that the first two have occurred; the third is highly likely and I have no opinion on the fourth.

Right now the main protagonist is person who has expressed a desire to leave Wikipedia so care must be taken not to cause distress disproportionate to the expected benefit of an expose. Much of the background has been collected and/or discussed off-wiki. While those source are inherently wiki-tainted much of the initial information has been collected though I strongly caution those not collecting their own data to take special care to form their own analytical and investigative opinions. This can be difficult when one is exposed to new information which has been 'pre-framed'.

If finances are your concern I would, in the general case, look for a pattern of practice which could point to self-dealing or loose financial oversight. I do not know enough about this case or WMF funding patterns in general to have an opinion. My initial read is that this particular case is likely to be more about individuals exploiting Wikipedia and third parties than the Foundation itself doing sketchy things. That opinion could change but that is the outline I see based on what I have seen to date.

Also, see my reply to xeno above. Jbh ^Talk 15:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Both well-reasoned posts. Thank you, –xeno^talk 16:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just acknowledging the ping, amd wanted to say I brought this up with Smallbones before it was sent. Seems very newsworthy to me but obviously risky for The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

re:"The Signpost is probably the place where such issues can be laid open for examination but it would first require some in-depth investigative journalism." Part of me would really like to look into this in great detail (but I haven't really seen enough solid evidence yet to start anything for The Signpost). And part of me says that these accusations won't be able to be shown one way or another with sufficient evidence, so all that might happen is some good people get tarred with unprovable accusations, i.e. smeared. I, personally will keep looking around for evidence one way or another, just to keep on top of a possible story. I wouldn't personally think I'm the best person to do this story, but if others on The Signpost (or, with caveats, from the community at large), want to submit a story - well send me an email first - but I'm not totally against it. There better be good evidence first though. Before publishing, all key evidence has to check out with diffs, or publicly accessible high quality sources. In general if The Signpost starts an investigation, we'd have to commit ourselves, right at the start, that we'll publish our results one way or the other, e.g. yes, it looks like there was inappropriate conduct, or "these accusations look to be unfounded," or perhaps "some interesting questions were raised, but our failure to find solid evidence on xxx shows that the accusers have failed to prove their case." The writer/investigator would make their own conclusions, with heavy input from me, and we'd have to call 'em as we see 'em. Email me diffs or other publicly available material just to keep me in the loop - but no promises. I'm not averse to asking accused people for their response (if the evidence is strong enough). I once emailed the Acting Attorney General of the US for his response, and eventually got it through the Justice Department's PR person (after publication). So no promises, but feel free to keep me informed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight on how The Signpost goes about things. As I said, it is not something I would want to go forward with for all the reasons I mentioned above. There are just too many blind spots in the information currently available to assess what, if anything, is there. Assuming the reporting is not limited to WP drams (Which I can not see the point of) I believe it would be imperative to ask the people involved at the APC, Queensland Univ, the APC History Project as well as our editors and Foundation personnel for both comment and information in order to have a fair and comprehensive pre-publication investigation and I'm just not up for that. Right now all there is is enough for a hit piece on LH and I see no public benefit to that. While I can support the use of such info as a springboard for a 'lessons learned' and to see if we have people abusing the WP/WM systems there is no way I would support publication as a news story. I say let The Guardian AU, or such, do it if the story has legs. Jbh ^Talk 19:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open on this but there is a very long way to go. One possible alternative is to look for little pieces and move the story ahead one step at a time. These little pieces may not be what anybody wants however. BTW asking people or institutions to open up to The Signpost can be pretty difficult outside the broad Wikimedia community. Actually it's pretty difficult for any journalist anywhere, but I suspect that The New York Times, Washington Post, or The Guardian have much better resources than we do, especially with institutions outside the Wikimedia community. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

stretching the envelope

You are doing excellent work in showing the T&S action for what it really was and why it should all be struck down and everything done properly without the toxic external interference that has dogged the community for the last three months. And, by your last last comment, when you say "stretching the envelope", do you mean "acting entirely improperly and in probably the worst possible way that they can do"? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thank you. Considering this material will possibly be used to later demonstrate issues re not only other editors but at least one board member and relations with outside projects (I see no evidence of fault by those projects) I am being very careful not to state opinion as fact nor draw conclusions or make claims about people's professional behavior. Beyond that I want to avoid or minimize the entanglement of the many good faith editors touched by the APC project with those whose good faith I feel should be examined rather than assumed. -- Aside from attempting to convince the Arbs of the ethical and procedural weaknesses of this case, I am documenting the un-examined issues should anyone ever decide to formally examine them.

The issues appear to me, based on the information I have developed or seen, to range from questionable editing, undisclosed COI and apparent violations of English Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines; through apparent misbehavior of a board member with respect to enwp editing/PaGs and situations and behavior as a Foundation Trustee which need to be addressed to square statements and actions where there was the appearance of conflict of interest; to editor relationships and funding from outside organizations.

I do not know if those matters will ever be effectively addressed or even addressed at all; But, for the health of the Foundation and community I firmly believe they need to be. Jbh ^Talk 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I second SchroCat's praise of your work. You are to be commended for the diligence and professionalism of your investigation. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"for the health of the Foundation and community I firmly believe they need to be": I agree wholeheartedly. And this is the problem with silencing Fram and holding proceeds in camera. If this had been handled in the normal way, this evidence would have been presented much earlier in the process and form much of the background and locus of dispute to be examined. I suspect that's why it's T&S that's been handling it, rather than an ArbCom case opened by one of the people in the loop you describe. I doubt we will ever get to the bottom of it all, but you are making an excellent attempt to lie it all out in the open. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor error

"Details come out on Meta" has an "emp. mine" in a quote that has no emphasis added. If the emphasis was added by LH it should be added to the quoted material. If added by someone else the "emp. mine" note should be removed.

BTW, really good stuff. When I do my daily look at updates I look at your first. --05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thank you! Is it the "talk page notice"? If so the final paragraph, listing the T&S people, is italicized to in connection to the point in "red". I did not want to bold the names because I thought that would make them too prominent since I was criticizing the one listing them not them for being listed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention though, you are correct that it is hard to see the emphasis with the small type. It does defeat the purpose when the ^{emp mine} is more prominent than the "emphasis". Jbh ^Talk 06:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Rename stuff

Check Meta :) [I'm not watching your talk page and will likely miss any replies here.] — regards, Revi 15:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: Thank you. I will work on writing something. Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors who, at a minimum appear to have supported and shielded a problematic editor, again over a period of years"

Hi JBhunley. I noticed that you pinged me here to state that I was "intimately familiar" with a vanished editor, and here to state that I was part of a group of "Wikipedia editors who, at a minimum appear to have supported and shielded a problematic editor, again over a period of years". That's...a pretty hardcore accusation to be making, and not one that makes any sense to me. The entirety of your evidence seems to be that I made a timeline of events related to a 2011 Arbcom case involving the vanished editor (and perhaps that I'm married to Courcelles, and he once interacted with the vanished user, and something something transitivity?). That timeline has since been deleted by me based on it containing information about other users that was no longer needed, but any administrator can review the deleted content and tell you that it was, literally, just a timeline: a bullet-point list of things that happened/were said and when they happened/were said. The only other times a quick ANI search shows me participating in discussions regarding the vanished user (long before I took on my role with the WMF), I believe I either supported sanctions or I supported the user being given mentorship to remedy weak spots in their editing.

I understand that you feel something has gone gravely wrong in the Fram case and in the related situation with the vanished user, but I would ask that you please not allege malfeasance by me unless you are prepared to present strong evidence to that effect. If you're unable or unwilling to present such evidence, please retract your accusations against me, as they are very hurtful personally and are potentially harmful to my ability to do my job, which is supporting and strengthening the community and which matters to me very much. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: This is a copy of the clarification I placed on the Stewards page

To be clear I mean to neither state nor imply malfeasance on the part of en:User:Fluffernutter. I am making an argument of appearances which the vanishing of this user makes unreasonably difficult to scrutinize. For clarity. Her husband was a named party in an arbitration case brought against an editor who was scrutinizing the vanished editor and causing disruption to her project much like Fram. Because Fluffernetter created a timeline for the case she had knowledge of this editor and the issues surrounding her in 2011.It is merely an indication of a linkage which someone scrutinizing the totality of this matter would likely want to explore solely because of Fluffernetter is now a member of T&S and her husband a member of the Arbcom at the time of the Fram case (I have seen no indication he participated publicly in the case and no reason to believe he did so provatly) I see no indications of malfeasance on the part of Fluffernutter.[5]

I did not intend to imply and do not believe I did imply an any intimate relationship between you and LH I was speaking around your marriage to Courcells because I had often heard it mentioned but was not positive it had been disclosed on wiki and I am trying very hard not to do any OUTING.

To explain in a bit more detail. I believe that I have created a solid case that but for LH T&S would not have done the ban. My reasoning is in my thread in the case PD talk page but I can lay it out. Proceeding from the 'but for' one must then ask why: There we have the 'stuff' surrounding the APC project - defense of bad editing practices by the same group of involved editors; the 2011 Arbcom case which there are off-wiki indications that the subject of the case was interfering with LH's work; and the ban of the editor doing the same thing as the first was in 2011; There is an seeming line that can be drawn between 2011 and now and I can draw that line. I was going to do some of that for the Stewards today but I have been a bit sidetracked.

Anyway, since the 2011 case is an, imperfect, analogue but seems to have a similar motive (based on the but for conclusion) The participants of that case become of interest. More so if they occupy positions of power or authority now. That is all I intended to or imply. There is a link no more and no less. Not that you have done anything wrong or that I have reason to suspect you have only that there is a link. Also, again to be clear, the link is not just that you made a timeline. You could have done that and forgotten by now. The link that is that your now husband participated in the case and was also involved in the Paralympic project (I am not linking him to any of the general issues I have raised here or elsewhere about that project. I am noting only his long term involvement cf meta:Grants:PEG/Laura Hale, Courcelles, Hawkeye7, Chzz/Outreach Oceania) and you you were familiar enough with the case to make a timeline. I do not think you did anything improper but you are currently employed by T&S. The same T&S that acted to inexplicably, inexplicable except for that line of similarity between now and that old case. That is the problem when organizations act suspiciously (I challenge you to say with a straight face that, from the outside point of view, there are not good reasons to see T&S's action and subsequent behavior as suspicious. they bring suspicion down on all those involved whether objectively deserving of it or not.

I am trying to choose my words carefully in all of this and not to make claims beyond the evidence I can publicly post on WP. Please, read through what I have written because, as this conversation shows, what I intend, what I write and what others understand sometimes do not line up. If you have any other concerns please let me know either on WP or via email. Jbh ^Talk 20:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No personal (hygiene) attacks

This may not have been your intention, but I think you have attacked SilkTork’s personal hygiene, fragrantly been violating the claimed embargo on this information Jehochman ^Talk 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to point this out (to prove that people are uncollapsing and reading the letter), but Jehochman put it better than me. Flagrantly. BTW (on a matter further up the page), the relationship between Courcelles and Fluffernutter (or at least that stage of the relationship) was disclosed on his userpage in August 2014 with this edit. Not sure if it was disclosed or known earlier. See also here (also in August 2014) and the edit summary, and the update in April 2018 here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thank you. I was sure it was known in general, just not positive enough to refer directly considering some of the circumlocutions required to avoid WP:OUTING claims in general. She also mentioned it directly in a section above. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you want more corrections? (I say this as someone who has great respect for what you have been writing - have you considered, um, applying those skills in certain positions on Wikipedia?): 'rational' -> rationale; 'envalope' -> envelope; 'doner' -> donor. On a more pertinent point, the username has no space (this is a redirect on meta and a deleted page [red-link] here). You corrected this in your text, but the opening line of the request red-links to the version with a space (which does not exist and is not registered - I am surprised no-one has locked that down yet to avoid problems later). Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Putting my reply here to avoid the nice poem below Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A truly horrible typo is when you send invitations for a Donner Party instead of a Dinner Party. And yes, these skills of perception could be put to good use starting some time in late November. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That one was a Freudian slip -- Wikipedia will eat itself. Jbh ^Talk 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Gah... Yes. Thanks. I spell like an illiterate eight year old. Jbh ^Talk 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Where is the red linked username located? The one in the letter looks OK and I do not see any on this page. Alternately, you may remove the space if you would prefer not to post it here. Jbh ^Talk 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

On Meta, at the start of the username request change. Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed + some spelling too. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Doh... Someone needs to come up with an autocorrect that makes sure one types the correct word as well as spelling it properly. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Autocorrect is a pubic menace. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her (Ode to a spellchecker)

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,
Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.
Your shore lee glad two no.
It is core wrecked in every weigh,
My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,
And AIDS me when aye rime.

Eye strike a key and type a word.
And weight four it two say.
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait aweigh.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,
Is trussed two bee a Joule.
The check Ur pours o'er every word,
To Czech sum spelling rule.

As soon AZ a mist ache is maid.
It nose bee fore two long.
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,
hour spelling mite decline.
If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den,
With words sew fare too here.

2 rite with care is quite a fete,
Of witch won should bee proud;
and wee mussed dew the best week Anne,
Sew flaws argh[6] knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.
Such soft wear four pea seize.
And why eye brake in 2 averse
With righting sure too please.

^{Attribution: I composed the above as a modification of various versions found on the web labeled "author unknown" or some such. Later I discovered this page, which appears to document the original sources, and my version is clearly a heavily modified derivative version of what is listed on that page. The basic idea goes back at least as far as A Misspelled Tail by Elizabeth T. Corbett, originally published in the children's magazine St. Nicholas in 1893. To whatever extent the above is my own work, I release it under the Creative Commons CC0 license. --Guy Macon}

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC) ^{[Citation Needed]}

Perfect! Although, for me, it is more descriptive of my text without spell check than with. :)

Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee

If you don't get anywhere with the Ombudsman or at Jimmy's talk page, have you considered the meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee? The charter (see meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee Charter) was last revised in 2013. The current members (2018-19) are Nataliia Tymkiv (Chair), James Heilman, Dariusz Jemielniak, Raju Narisetti, Maria Sefidari, with non-voting advisory members: Ira B. Matetsky, Gayle Karen Young, Tim Moritz Hector, Ido Ivry, Kat Walsh, and staff liaison Chuck Roslof. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thank you, I did not know such a committee existed. I have spent the last four or so days writing a structured analytic document in response to the request for "proof" from the Stewards re my un-vanish request. I am spending today extricating from the Tar-Baby it has become. Much of the material I looked at to show "more scrutiny needed" is ending up as out-of-scope for enwp so this committee seems a good place to go. I think the document actually makes the case for an independent and accessible ombudsman as well or better than for the un-vanishing. Although I see both cases as strong. Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That list of members appears to be slightly outdated (in particular, I left that committee at the end of last year—Ira Matetsky is me). When I was a non-voting member, the Committee focused on issues affecting the structure of the Board itself, such as WMF By-Law amendments. I don't know whether it would be the right committee of the Board to address WMF-EnWiki communications issues, although the presence of both Doc James (Heilman) and Pundit (Jemielniak), both of whom have edited on this wiki, would be a plus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you. From what you say it does not seem like it would be an appropriate venue for my questions/issues of which a functioning ombudsman is really only tangential. Let me see if I can explain in a way that will not potentially run afoul our rules here:

• The Fram case is odd. It is the result of the WMF using an untested new power in a situation where the object of that attention was an asshole to some people but far and away not the type of case where a global ban is made. There is some evidence which I have pointed out on the PD page that can be seen as an indication the ban was out of process even for them. This is where the ombudsman question came up, the plain reading of the confidentiality agreement seems off from the applicability the Foundation is claiming.
• The community discussion, long before I heard of the case, focused on the "conspiracy theory" that a board member or some such had influence, directly or indirectly, on the T&S decision process leading to the ban.
• From the previous issues about WMFAU and editing in relation to the Paralympics come up
• This leads to a Wikiversity tender for $110,000.00 and $15,000.00 in article writing prizes. Which leads to questions about paid editing and the influence on the events leading up to the case.
• From this I decide to look at the participants in three germane conflicts and, from the budgeting in the tender and prize payouts see the weight of dollars on those cases ie how much did various participants have riding on the the overall topic of Paralympic editing. I also looked at one article which was brought up elsewhere so it is unlikely to be representative.

  The numbers were derived by taking what was budgeted in [7] and dividing it equally among people assigned to each line item. I identified the prize winners from here and their value from section 2 of this diff. The '$ weights' which resulted are:

  1. $23,300.00
  2. $48,300.00
  3. $41,835.00
  4. $45,800.00

     Note: these are not per article. If a individual editor was assigned $10,000.00 from the method I described then any dispute they participate in has $10,000.00 added to the 'weight'. All it is is a proxy for motivation to 'win' in disputes over and above a regular un-paid volunteer.

• Since the tender expired I wanted to see if the project continued. I found indication that in 2013 WMFAU was seeking $125,000.00 to participate in an ARC Linkage grant program. In 2014, after 'consultations' with WMF, and withdrawal of the funding request from WMF WMFAU said they would not be participating in the linkage grant but they would continue to support the Paralympics.
  • Curious about the Linkage grant I looked it up. It is active, starting in FY 2013 with an original funding level of $244,266.00 and showing the current funding level as $262,906.57. The associated project centers around Wikipedia editing. One of the three organizations listed as grantees, both in 2013 and currently, is "Wikimedia Australia". Also, a Wikipedian is listed as a "PI" (I assume 'principal investigator') in 2013 but not currently. They edit under their own name and have not, to my knowledge, been discussed by the community in relation to the Fram case.

There are lots of innocent reasons for this so, no accusations or implications intended here. It does show that the potential exists for paid editing being a driving factor in some of the conflicts leading up to the Fram case. That can be addressed by the community so it is the focus of my comments. Any ideas?? Jbh ^Talk 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I sent the detailed narrative of the above as well as the structured analytic document relating to the general circumstances around the Fram case to Arbcom via the functionaries list so you should get a copy. @Carcharoth: email me if you would like a copy. Most of the material can be posted on-wiki. All elements of infomation presented in the Annex are either from Wikimedia related sites or the result of, to the best of my recolection, "one step away" from material on those sites. The only reason for not presenting this on-wiki is I do not feel like Wikicoding it and it could be seen as running afoul recent additions to WP:OUTING disallowing 'digging' for information on other Wikimedia sites. Jbh ^Talk 01:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My best bet

is that the OC will refuse to touch this mess, with a 20 feet barge-pole or so and simply ask you to consult T&S.

At any case, they closed two cases out of fourteen, last half of the year. Statistics for previous years are botched up and don't match, when roll-counted. And, I happened to know names, who regularly flies off to Wikimania and other blah blah WMF conferences, every few months but did shit nothing whilst on the committee. So, don't have much of any expectations. (You might follow the discussion and further linked discussions from meta:User_talk:Teles#Please, for the on-wiki aspects.) ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That thread was enlightening. I'm making a permalink to it for reference. In truth, I do not believe the concept of a community volunteer ombudsman is workable here not when they are chartered to work for and report to the WMF Board. The whole point of an ombudsman is to be an advocate for the complaint. The more I look into the WMF the more discouraged I get. Jbh ^Talk 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Erm. Sorry (and will apologize to the editor too)

Jbh hello. I'll keep it short. My apologies for the said post. And yes, will apologise to the editor in question too. Warmly, Lourdes 05:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes Thank you. I appreciate and respect you for doing that. We all screw up sometimes, me as much as or more than anyone else. In my opinion, one's measure is marked less by the faux pas than by how one recovers from it. Jbh ^Talk 05:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

E-Mail

• @Mkdw, DeltaQuad, and Premeditated Chaos: I have sent you all a copy of an email I received by mistake a few weeks ago. Assuming it is authentic, and there is no reason to think it is not, at a minimum it sheds some light on Praxidicae's the author's real world 'behavioral pattern' which should be considered here. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (Last edited: To not impute authorship since it is unclear from context. 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)) (Just saw this edir conflicted and did not save)

• That's a hell of an accusation, and my preliminary looks show that this is completely out of context and that the text you saw was not written by Prax. I've redacted the accusation for the time being. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I had changed it an hour or so ago. The email read like it was being forwarded to the target but that may simply be because of the context in which I read it -- addressed to me, not a report since no one reports such things to me. Jbh ^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I decided to move the discussion here so that @Praxidicae: can respond to the accusation too. So this was not Praxidicae doing anything wrong. She was trying to get warning to Jehcohman (as noted publicly), whom @SQL: mixed up to be you. The editor who posted the blurb you saw in the email on zh-yue wiki was zh-yue:Special:貢獻/157.250.156.34. I can independently verify that. Praxidicae was only trying to warn about the message.

Furthermore, I'm absolutely shocked that you would decide to restore an oversighted edit. That is technically grounds for an {{oversightblock}} as you still posted a potentially libelous statement, leaving Praxidicae's name involved. Be more careful about restoring oversighted edits in the future, or those blocks will show up. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Easy with your threats here, DeltaQuad. Your bias and favouritism is potentially debatable here, so please discuss with your fellow oversighters on whether or not this is an example of "restoring an oversight edit" before making such judgements. Let them make the call/make the warning, not you. In any case, if this was a serious matter as you seem to imply, you would be discussing all of these relevant matters privately rather than drawing additional attention on the supposedly "harassed "victim. Please stop. Alex Shih (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I'm absolutely aware of what I can and cannot do. I have not issued the block, nor have I reoversighted it, and furthermore have no intention of doing so for this edit. I'm not that snappy. Also if you have an accusation that I'm WP:INVOLVED, take it to the appropriate place and provide evidence instead of casting the aspersion here. I have not raised any further attention to a matter than was already posted by Praxidicae on Jechoman's talkpage, as was linked. It's already public. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Let me get this straight. So you were making an oversight blocking threat over an edit that was neither grounds for suppression nor blocking, when you explicitly said "I'm absolutely shocked that you would decide to restore an oversighted edit. That is technically grounds for an {{oversightblock}} as you still posted a potentially libelous statement". Got it. I have sent an e-mail to oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org to ask for clarification, and I trust you will respond there. As for the other point, when dealing with genuine harassment victims, it doesn’t matter if edits are public on Wikipedia or not, isn’t it? You know this far better than I do. The purpose of suppression is to not draw further attention from what was being suppressed, but isn’t that what you were doing here. Also, the point of protecting harassment victims is to not draw any further attention to them in subsequent edits, and I am also afraid this is what you have done here, is it not? Alex Shih (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Suppression is to prevent the vast majority of people from seeing information which could otherwise cause harm, not necessarily to prevent attention from being drawn towards it. Vermont (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Alex Shih the oversighted diff in question concerned me and an accusation that I had done something nefarious in real life when in fact the e-mail in question has literally nothing at all to do with me other than the fact that I happened across it while patrolling x-wiki and am the person that reported it to T&S and emergency as harassment and a threat for which JSutherland (WMF) can also confirm. For that reason, I won't post the exact details of the content here, nor should anyone need to know them. I had asked SQL off-wiki if he would not mind e-mailing said content to Jehochman who asked here as I currently utilize my real-life identity in my attached e-mail and am not willing to disclose it to editors I do not know. SQL mistakenly sent it to Jbhunley. That is the extent of this e-mail being discussed and it was used as an accusation against me, as a "real life" accusation of wrong-doing, which is both an attack and, shocker, a BLP violation! So in light of your last response, would you not consider someone posting on-wiki that you had done something nefarious in real life to be a blatant attack, especially when it was wholly incorrect and unsupported by any actual evidence and in fact, evidence to the contrary? This stuff is and should be routinely oversighted. Please see It is used within strict limits to protect privacy, remove defamatory material, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations, from any edit, revision, page, or log entry (including, if required, the list of users) on the English Wikipedia. emphasis mine. Praxidicae (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: I accused you of nothing in the edit DeltaQuad oversighted and all I said in the forwarded email was "This email was sent to me, in error, by SQL. I do not know who it was intended for but Praxidicae looks to have pretty unclean hands in any 'stalker' situation. If it was re Ritchie33 it is germane to the ongoing dispute."

  The reason I said that is I initially received and read it as from you to me and it stayed in my mind as from you to someone. I am sorry for that but it was only sent to the admin's involved in the, in my view at the time, relevant dispute and, as I assume they did, all they needed to do is ask you about it to clear things up. The potential harm should it have been from you far outweighs a couple of admins asking you about a very stalkery attempt to intimidate someone.

  After reading the email from a different perspective and this little bit of unneeded drama from DeltaQuad, it is clear the message did not originate from you. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You do realize my comment was specifically about your on-wiki accusation, not whatever you sent via e-mail, right? There was a direct and blatant accusation there. That is what is being discussed, which is in absolutely no way a reflection of my behavior here or anywhere else. Not to mention, it's silly to believe that an administrator would send you a threatening message on behalf of an actual abuser. I would just like for the air to be clear here, what was said here and elsewhere has absolutely nothing to do with me nor should anyone believe as much. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I sent material, I mistakenly believed you had some hand in -- the closing comment from the person who forwarded it was "Creepy stuff. My understanding is that emergency@ has been notified. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance." which left me with the impression that the the reciepient was the target and I assumed, incorrectly you were the source. Take that as you will, I am informing you of my state of mind because you questioned it, not debating it -- I provided that material to the involved admins. In the interest of transparency I left a note saying what I had done and why I had done it. I got a reply from one of those admins that said "It’s worth mentioning that we have reason to believe the contents were directed at Praxidicae and not authored by her" Note: The reply was not "Praxidicae did not write this" which I take as a strong indication that my initial view was not completely off-the-wall or even unreasonable in the context then available.

I then edited my comment to indicate the author was unclear, hit save and left the computer. I came back later, saw it had edit conflicted; copied the text; re-opened the edit window; pasted it; hit save; and went about my day. I returned to this overblown shitshow.

I am sorry I misinterpreted the situation. The content and my then belief left me with a duty of care to pass it on since I, at the time, had reason to suspect there was more than met the eye was going on in the current Richie33 matter. I am glad it was not you

Could I get a copy of this email please? I have been tracking this perpetrator for months and working with T&S resolve the problems they've caused innocent users. I'd like to see what it says and then make use of it in the investigation. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I will forward it to you. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: WTF!!?? You made no mention of oversighting the edit you said "I've redacted the accusation for the time being". That is a long way from "oversighted" or even "revdeled" and since when is an edit OVERSIGHTED "for the time being"?! How the hell do I take that to mean you have invoked your WP:OVERSIGHT superpowers? No ping, no note, NOTHING. If I had not noticed that my change, made before your action, had edit conflicted and not saved, leading to my "restoration" I still would not know one of my edits had been oversighted.

  What portion of the oversight policy do you claim the edit violated? Hell "shed light on real world behavioral pattern" is only "potentially libelous" if you know the content of the email. So since my comment did not even meet the criteria for WP:REVDEL and you have copied it over to my talk page, please undo your your oversighting. Considering you are on the meta:Ombudsman commission, who would I, hypothetically, go to to complain about your abuse of an advanced permission and wildly inappropriate threat to block to back it up? Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Let's assume any conflict here is fog of war, and we all forgive each other and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think I will wait until DeltaQuad edits again and see if/what her response is and how she responds to her ADMINACCT and ADMINCOND duties. In my view she made a bad oversight call, performed it with less than usual care ot courtesy and compounded it with a backhanded 'I'm not going to block you but I can and will (if you do something you did not ever do in the first place)'.

  To put it mildly, on my Wikipedia scale of things, I am extremely pissed, even on second and third reconsideration. DQ can fix this, the question is if she recognizes her error and does so or if it takes a drama-fest. ArbCom has set out their new expectations on admin behavior and this, in my strong and unwavering opinion, is far over the old line for abuse of tools.

  I have better things to do than deal with this shit, I was not even editing when the FRAM thing caught my attention. but I am not going to have an OVERSIGHTED edit, especially one which the oversighter herself copied the text to my talk page after performing the oversight!! Jbh ^Talk 17:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Jbhunley, I hope you'll let this drop. DeltaQuad saw something that seemed to throw a serious shadow over a third party (unfairly), and she removed it before it caused harm. No more needs to be said about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  @SlimVirgin: I will drop it and consider it done business when DQ reverses her oversighting and retracts her threat to block me. She screwed up, badly. We just went through 100+ days of drama the end result of which was an unequivocal statement that admins must be held to a higher standard even in their regular interactions. DQ is not only an admin, she is an oversighter, not only that she sits on the meta:Ombudsman commission -- the people one goes to when one has a complaint about misuse of the oversight permission. More that that I have current business before the Ombudsman Commission so: she misused the oversight tool; failed to inform me she had oversighted an edit I had made; copied the very edit she oversighted to my talk page; and threatens me with an oversight block for restoring that very same material. All when I have an issue I brought before a commission I have publicly criticized. That is so much more than simply failing ADMINCOND. She is 100% in the wrong here and needs to own up to it.

  I like Wikipedia, I agree that the environment here can be toxic and I believe, very strongly, in standing up against the types of behavior that make it toxic. DQ's behavior and the idea that I should let it slide is right near the top on the type of thing that people complain about -- toxic admins.(Add: I just re-read that last. I do not mean to say your request is toxic, I see it as a good faith attempt to reconcile a dispute. It is the idea that something so bad as this should not be addressed that I have an issue with. It normalizes incorrect behavior, leaves the wronged party feeling helpless and gives no feedback to the person who made the error to ensure the mistake is not repeated. That loop is what contributes to the toxic environment.) Since she has not edited on WP since my response to her here on my talk page I am assuming that she made an honest mistake and will correct it when she next edits here -- be that tomorrow or next year, this being the kind of matter that must be resolved. That is where I both hope and want things to end and until given reason to believe something along those lines will not occur I will believe and behave as if it will.

  PS. What harm? If I had both described and attributed the material, sure but oversight not even revdel or "please strike or reword"... really? Or were you just defending her intention, not her action? I can respect that and even accept she had the best intentions -- they were just wrong. Jbh ^Talk 03:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Last edited: to add clairification. 04:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the suppression on the diff. I also already self-reported to ArbCom and invoked their audit function. They will consider any sanctions against me, not that that should be exclusive, and anyone can take any other action else where. If you wish you can pass this on to the Ombuds too or even try the WMF. I have no objection to that. Also, as an Ombud I can not, nor would I touch, comment on, or deal with any cases that involved actions taken on this wiki. This is why I have had no involvement in your case that you mention, nor do I even know what it is about. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I will also admit that I failed to inform you here or there (though I would have done it here) that the edit had been oversighted. I was doing that initially to not draw attention to it, that said, I definitely could of informed you here about it. I did not think of that at the time and for that I apologize. It also did not give you a clear picture of the status of that edit, making it hard for you to understand you would have been restoring such an edit. Therefore, I view my comment now as unwarranted, and I withdraw my initial statement about this triggering an oversightblock. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: Thank you. I see no need to take this any further, you have done all I could ask or properly expect and I appreciate that very much. I do understand your concern with that edit and, until this blew up on my talk page I had assumed you had simple]y {{redacted}} it ie removed material by normal editing. In that case I figured it would be more proper for me to change what I had written to reflect my new understanding of the situation rather than allow my assertion to stand, keeping the inaccurate implication that what I had written was correct, just not proper to say.

  I believe strongly in positively, not passively, correcting my errors be they in fact or in behavior. Thank you for addressing and correcting yours. That leaves me with a stronger positive impression than any negative feeling the initial issue evoked. Enjoy your weekend. Jbh ^Talk 11:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

loss

Regarding these edits]: I understand what you meant to say, but consider the literal meaning of I consider her a loss as an admin. It unfortunately means you think someone's tenure as an admin was a loss. But not sure it's worth doing anything about, now that the discussion is closed... isaacl (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope my sentiment was clear in context even though my syntax was off. Jbh ^Talk 02:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	An interesting year. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)