This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January. Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles. October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests. November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog. Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now! Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles. Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{ Done}}, {{ Withdrawn}} or {{ Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ozzie10aaaa!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen! I hope all is well. I finally made some draft edits for Equality Act (United States) on its Talk Page that I think should be added to article and I would like your feedback on Talk:Equality Act (United States). Thank you! - TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:National Association of Scholars#NPOV January 2020. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically " It seems that some editors want to persuade the reader to adopt a particular opinion about NAS, rather than presenting objective information about the organization and letting the reader draw his/her/their own conclusions." That's also a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug Weller - I did not write anything on Talk:Stefan Molyneux - I think you are referring to our discussion at Talk:National Association of Scholars#NPOV January 2020.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was a copy-paste error which I've fixed. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought it might have been something like that. No problem. Thank you for the fast response.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen! You created a thread called Debate cleanup tag - Link directly to a Talk page section? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{ nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GA process.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist ( talk) 20:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Twofingered Typist!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You were WP:Bold, and were reverted. Do not WP:Edit war. I'm taking this to the talk page. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization, but let's discuss on the Talk page. I already created a new section.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this and it being posted to other WikiProjects, the "controversy" part of your heading is not neutral. See WP:APPNOTE. What controversy? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen! You created a thread called Annual readership template at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{ nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much AugusteBlanqui for reviewing the article and for your kind words—much appreciated! All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi - just following up on the point you made about editors being analysed by that AfD tool. Sorry if I wasn't clear - the point I was trying to make is that there is a massive database with all of everybody's edits in there, and the data it stores is freely available. There are all sorts of tools that allow you to analyse edits - whether that's evaluating AfD votes, looking at the pages you edit most frequently, looking at how you edit, when you edit, and even your level of interactions with specific other editors. You shouldn't feel like there's some creepy AI constantly monitoring you and analysing what you are doing, but you should be aware that there are lots of tools that people can run to query the database and find stuff out about an editor's behaviour.

On the other point you made, I'm not sure there would be any benefit to codifying the rules around suitability for different permissions. There are quite a few factors that admins might want to consider, and different admins probably weight them differently based on their own experiences. Something that I would give a lot of weight to in an AfC reviewer, as well as knowledge of policy, is civility and willingness to communicate. You could have a 100% hit rate at AfD, but if you routinely decline drafts without bothering to explain why, or just tell the newb editor 'This is crap', I'd pull the perm immediately. The same would apply if we suspected that someone was accepting promotional AfC drafts and publishing them in mainspace in return for financial gain - that happens, more often than it should, and always leads to an unceremonious indef block for UPE. So, yeah - I wouldn't spend too long putting together proposals for codifying what often comes down to a 'sniff test', if you see what I mean. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Very helpful - thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Markworthen!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 12:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen,

I now realise that "jobsworth" is an almost exclusively British word. Probably with good reason. On my one visit to the US, and in the course of numerous calls to support lines for US businesses, I have received much better service than I would expect in England.

As for replying on a talk page: I would prefer to write immediately below the posting that I'm replying to, with one more level of indentation, as you did. But if someone else has already responded like that, I'd make my way down to immediately below all responses to the message I'm responding to and the responses to them etc., and still use the same level of indentation that I would have done. Maproom ( talk) 09:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Maproom: Thank you so much. All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hampton, Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langley Speedway ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for taking on the work of improving substance use disorder. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Than means a lot me James. Thank you very much.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your page explaining the various reviews that have been conducted on the article and thought I would check in with you here before starting the review. I think that the article looks great and have just a couple of thoughts to run by you.

• I think it would be good to mention in the intro what PTSD means.
• Similarly, it would be good to move the PTSD subsection out of the VA disability benefits for PTSD section. In fact, I am not understanding the grouping of subsections there, but this should be able to be addressed quickly. It seems to me that History could be pulled out of this section... with these placed in their own sections before the VA disability benefits for PTSD section.
• It would be nice to understand why there is overciting in some places.

Basically, I consider these minor issues. I am seeing that the content is well-written and should be an otherwise easy review.

This is a bit outside the norm for articles I work on (out of choice), but I was a Health Care and Benefits consultant - and the daughter of a disabled veteran so I feel up to this review.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@ CaroleHenson: Thank you so much! You have a great background for this article IMHO. :) I will get to work straight away to make the changes you recommend, all of which make very good sense to me.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. I think I will go ahead and start the GA review page...and I will likely start on the review tomorrow... or when you are ready. I am not meaning to push.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I made several edits consistent with your (very helpful) recommendations ( diff). I'll post a couple of brief explanatory notes here in a bit, but I wanted you to know that the main editing you suggested has been accomplished. :)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The section titled, PTSD C&P Exam contains more citations than usual, but for good reasons.

(1) The second sentence that begins, "The definition of "VA psychologist or psychiatrist" ...." contains 7 references because:

(a) What constitutes a "VA psychologist or psychiatrist" is a frequent point of confusion. Most folks assume that these mental health clinicians are VA staff members. But in reality VA is gradually privatizing C&P exams, and it is more likely these days that a veteran will see a "VA psychologist or psychiatrist" who is in private practice working under contract for one of the MDE companies who in turn contract with VBA to conduct the exams. As you can see, it's a bit complicated and confusing not only for veterans but also policy-makers, attorneys, family members of veterans, veterans advocates, and the general public. and

(b) Many people want to know "who is QTC?" "why is LHI calling me", and similar (I've done Google Trends and Google count searches on such questions in the past and can do some again if it would be helpful.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I made some more edits to trim excessive citations ( diff).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good. If there is a reason for the extra citations, I am good... and appreciate that you have trimmed them where possible / able.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The subsection Concerns about reliability also contains more citations than usual, although I removed several.

Although this is not a controversial article (as far as I know) the subsection Concerns about reliability is at least potentially controversial. In many instances the Department of Veterans Affairs does not comment on journal articles that criticize the agency's policies and procedures regarding PTSD C&P exams. Where the agency has objected in writing, I have tried to always include those citations. I have sought to describe the controversy without "teaching the controversy". Since this section is potentially controversial I have provided more citations than usual, along the lines of "attribute each sentence, not just a paragraph".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This sentence, under the "false positive and false negative conclusions" image/table, will benefit from a brief explanation.

An empirical study published in 2017 suggested C&P examiner racial bias might have led to an increased rate of "false negative"[76] conclusions (regarding PTSD diagnosis and service connection) for Black veterans, and a high rate of "false positive"[77] conclusions for White veterans.[78] This finding corresponds with past research[79][80], subsequent research,[81] and legal scholarship[82] discussing the potential for implicit racial biases on the part of mental health clinicians in general, and C&P psychologists and psychiatrists in particular.

(i)The fact that some C&P examiners probably have implicit racial biases that affect their perception of Black veterans and influences their interpretations of interview responses and behavior (e.g., demeanor), is controversial in the sense that many people don't want to believe it. I cannot cite a reference to support that statement specifically for C&P examiners, although there's a lot of research showing how true it is for people generally, and health professionals in particular. Anecdotally, I know from talking with many White C&P examiners (I am also White) that they doubt these implicit bias findings. In fact I've been shocked at how many White examiners seem to minimize these research results, often exhibiting (it seems to me) a bias blind spot—believing that I am less biased than my peers. (I phrased that in first person to emphasize that I believe I am just as susceptible to the blind spot bias as anyone else.)

I will look at this when I get to it. I so understand what you mean about a blind spot. It's amazing how many social cues we pickup from various sources that affect our perceptions without being aware. I attended a very interesting weekend workshop once about determining where we sit on the racially biased to anti-racist continuum - and how our behaviors put us there - particularly when we / I am not performing anti-racist behavior / responses. I digress.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(ii) I wikilinked and referenced "false negative" and "false positive" because the terms are not readily comprehended by most people, and relatedly, to provide sufficient explanations of the terms immediately below the image of the 4x4 table that uses the terms.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ CaroleHenson: I very much appreciate your thorough, conscientious GA review. I started responding and will continue to respond over the next 1–2 days.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it's my pleasure. Sounds good!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Biogeographist tagged you in AEDP talk. I hoping it’s alright that I contact you directly. I’ve been working on the Aedp article since 2015. 2016 it was published but then in 2017 it was taken offline. All the reasons are clear in the talk page. I submitted April 27, 2020 and it was declined for same reason of not neutral point of view. I revised considerably but I don’t want to risk resubmitting without someone within Wikipedia giving a green light. I attempted to address every issue: I used every Third party references that there is. I used original references only when absolutely necessary. I included a critique section. I hope you can help. Thank you. Carrie Carrieruggieri ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Carrieruggieri: I did read the current version of the article and most of the history. My initial impression was the same as the AfC editor who declined to publish the article. But I'll take another look and offer some suggestions.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why this shows as a fail. I posted an issue here.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@ CaroleHenson: No worries, I'm sure someone will figure out the problem. ¶ I found the wikitext (below) on Template talk:GANotice. It works fine. Is there a requirement to use Legobot to keep track of nominations and results? ¶ Thank you for all your hard work on improving this article!

The article [[Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States]] you nominated as a [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|good article]] has passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|25px]], see [[Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States]] for comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.

All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that it's a bug and if there is a failed GA, the information needs to be put into article history and then the bot will work correctly.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved this page to User:Markworthen/Frontiers in Psychiatry - assuming you meant to create it in your userspace. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 01:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you so much for correcting my blunder. :)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:No-go area on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2014 Syrian presidential election on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I left the question on the page itself because I'm having trouble navigating the talk pages (I'm not used to it and find it very confusing) and I'm trying to get it seen by people who might want to be interviewed. So far, leaving messages on talk pages has not been working out too well-- but thank you for the tip! Hgiardina ( talk) 23:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Markworthen,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In the period 22-24 April 2018 you contributed to a discussion on the subject of the Reference desk guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 130#Proposed change to Reference desk Guidelines.

This subject is now being discussed again in a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Does this page reflect community consensus. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin ( t) 13:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alcoholism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that if we express our gender-labelling preferences in Special:Preferences, then the selection is available to everyone typically through templates like {{ they}}. So:

• {{they|RexxS}} → he
• {{they|Markworthen}} → he
• {{they|Bishonen}} → she
• {{they|Fae}} → they

Of course, you can just preview using the template the first time you want to use a third-person pronoun and then use the appropriate form to refer to them without worrying about misgendering anyone or using awkward constructions. Hope you find that helpful. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 01:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not know that! Thank you so much RexxS!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen/Archive 3,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino ( talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 United States presidential election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Markworthen, I appreciate a lot your feedback on how to improve the article. I have used a lot of sources to support much of the data. Regarding the style I do not know exactly where I am very enthusiastic or not neutral. As this is a collaborative encyclopedia I ask you to point out where or what phrases can be said differently. I have developed the article in Spanish and French, of course with the help of other wikipedians. If you can mark me or help me in the writing I appreciate it, because my first language is not English but Spanish. -- DamAzul ( talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)-- DamAzul ( talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino ( talk) 00:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Online article also published in print and digital magazine format - What to include in reference?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the star and very kind words - much appreciated. Best-- Iztwoz ( talk) 09:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

HI Markworthen/Archive 3,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Voting is generally a poor way to write the lead of an article. Would you please consider not having a support/oppose section on the RFC? Plain old iterative discussion is likely to be more effective. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing - I very much respect your opinion. I started an RfC to initiate more discussion as past discussions were limited to only a few editors. What would have been a better way to engage more editors in the discussion? I will also seriously consider your suggestion - just signing on, so I'm off to look at the RfC now. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Starting an RFC is a fine idea. The problem is that if you start an RFC with a section that says ===Survey (Support or Oppose)===, then you're asking people to reduce their opinions and suggestions to a binary choice. This is okay if you're asking a yes/no question, , but how to phrase something, or which of the many definitions to present first, isn't a yes/no question.

The most popular formatting choice is just to ask the question and not add any ===Subsections===. They're usually unnecessary. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, silly me, of course! What you write makes great sense. Thank you very much. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Mark, if you hadn't already seen this: WP:Requests for comment/Example formatting. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I had not seen that Kolya Butternut. Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and if you lack orginality like me, copy everyone else: WP:Requests for comment/All. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino ( talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas Markworthen!!
	Hi Markworthen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ozzie10aaaa! You made my day. :0) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history " Military Historian of the Year" and " Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Hi Markworthen ( talk · contribs)! I'm editing an article about the European Monetary System and there's a statement that I think may be wrong. I have looked around a little bit online but it's all Greek to me. Can I tag editors who are economists on the talk page of the article? Can I use {{ Category:Wikipedian economists}} or something to tag members of the Wikipedian economist category in the talk page? Thanks! TheMadDesperado ( talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ TheMadDesperado: Oh, good questions. Yes, you can tag editors who are economists on the talk page of the article. I don't know the answer to your second question, but I bet the folks at the Teahouse will know! All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ajpolino ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good evening. I see that you suggest the Ramapough Lenape Nation page is not written from a neutral point of view? May i ask how can you make facts be neutral, unless youre suggesting to add some of the inaccuracies to it. I would like to work with you on this if possible and since i am a Ramapough Tribal member, a tribal historian, and a Commissioner of Indian Affair for the State of New Jersey, I am qualified to answer any and all questions. Looking forward to your reply. Ramapoughnative ( talk) 03:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Ramapoughnative: Thank you for your kind message. First, please let me know if you are thoroughly familiar with the most relevant Wikipedia policies, which I list below, as I do not want to tell you things you already know. This is a quote from Wikipedia:Core content policies:

Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, jointly interpreted:

# Neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV) – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

1. Verifiability ( WP:V) – Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.

1. No original research ( WP:NOR) – Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Also, be aware that many editors will probably question your involvement with the article because of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. You will notice that I have not raised this objection because I believe that people involved in an issue often bring important knowledge and perspective to articles, and we (Wikipedia) should balance that fact with the potential for bias due to a conflict of interest. But that's just my personal opinion.

So if you would be so kind as to let me know something like, "Yes, I am very familiar with the Wikipedia policies you mentioned", or words to that effect, then let's go from there.

All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes i am familiar with Wikipedia's policies you mentioned. Ive been on Wiki for almost 20 years. All posts have documented verifiable sources, usually written by 1st hand accounts or by professionals in that field and at that time were available online. I'm curious about what you would consider a neutral point of view. This wouldn't include speculation and 1st person fairytales that are not backed by verifiable research, correct? Most history about the Ramapough before 1900 is derogatory, not from scientific basis but superstition. We also have Cohen who thinks of himself as a modern day "historian", but his college thesis about the Ramapough was highly inaccurate, almost to the point of a slander suit. His college professor also disagreed with his thesis and he is in the minority with his views. We have a few historians and we're working with a few Rutgers College professors to go back thru our history and find factual sources. I would like to include NPOV rule: 'In a neutral representation, the content is constructed in such a way none of the pertinent differing points of view are prominently presented. Wikibooks content needs to be based in facts not falsehoods, opinions or judgments.' Where would you like to begin? Ramapoughnative ( talk) 03:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Let's discuss on the article's talk page. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajpolino ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.-- Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)