User talk:TeaDrinker

Archives

March 2006 - July 2006 August 2006 - November 2006 December 2006 - March 2007 April 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 - October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 - April 2008 May 2008 - April 2009 May 2009 - August 2010 September 2010 - December 2011 January 2012 - December 2016

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what is going on here. I pointed out that Edward Palmer collected the original type specimen of Tradescantia pallida in 1907, and referenced the collection from the US National Herbarium. After further review, I realize that this reference doesn't fully support that statement. The Encyclopedia of Life article on the plant fully supports the wording I used, so I'll add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDogg310 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamarhat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali (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) 09:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just uploaded an image to en.wp, but I would like the image metadata to be scrubbed. Could you either do this for me directly, or have the file deleted so I can do this and upload it again? Thanks in advance. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohconfucius: I don't know of a way of removing the metadata from an image, so I have gone ahead and deleted the image. Hope this helps and let me know if there's anything else I can do. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you again. I uploaded the file again thinking that I had scrubbed the metadata, but it's still there. Could I ask you to delete it again for me, please? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohconfucius: Not a problem. Done. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jneuhaus99 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jneuhaus99 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I authored a page on Dr. "Ayodele Odusola" United Nations economist. It was rejected due to copyright violation – of a work to which I own the rights, myself (here: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/odusola/home). Now, I would like to put that copyrighted work in the public domain, then resubmit the page to Wikipedia, so no copyright violation can occur. How can I put the original work in the public domain, to satisfy Wikipedia's standards?

Thanks, in advance, for your help. Best regards, James

Jneuhaus99 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jneuhaus99: Thanks! Indeed, there is information on how to do this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The easiest way to donate the text is to place a notice on the website itself. The linked page also has other instructions. Note that it may not apply to the image, which as I recall was a picture of a book cover. The author of the book probably still has the copyright. Let me know (just post a note below) when you have added the note to the webpage and I will be happy to restore the draft. Do keep in mind that the article still should have references to other sources about the subject; I am happy to help with that if you are running into trouble, just let me know. I have gone ahead and restored the draft article, and will restore the text when the license is available. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added the text to the webpage, as suggested. Is it possible to restore the draft? At that point, I can modify and add the photo (the rights to which I own, myself) Thanks and best regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneuhaus99 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.elle.com/culture/news/a34512/woman-who-started-incel-movement/ the term incel has existed since the 1990s. Yet you describe it as a neologism. Why? 92.10.227.10 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference and your interest in the project. Obviously, reviewing an article requires some measure of judgement and the mere existence of a word for 20 years does not mean the term suddenly rising to prominence precludes it being a neologism. In that case, I found little evidence for use off the site Reddit.com. In my estimation, were I to move the article into the main article space, it would be deleted for a seventh time. We're not here to fight for the recognition of people or hide ideas, instead we're here to write an encyclopedia. And in my estimation, the draft did not demonstrate the widespread use of the term off the site Reddit.com. I note that Reddit.com has recently banned the Incel group from the site. Perhaps that will change the separability of the group from Reddit.com. However in my estimation, the term is currently used virtually exclusively in the same breath as the Reddit.com site, and as such should be included in that article and only split after discussion on that talk page. Hope this helps and thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 years. It predates not only the subreddit but even the entire website. Either way other incel communities online include Discord, Voat, /r9k/ on 4chan sluthhate, PUAhhate, Lookism; and that's just off the top of my head. The highest ranking incel forums per Google search returns are incels dot me and incel dot life. In other words incels are in no way shape or form limited to Reddit. The term "involuntary celibacy" is even older. 92.10.227.10 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the concept is discussed in 16 other languages none of whom seem to be focused on Reddit: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q332395 92.10.227.10 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The job as a reviewer is to determine if the article will likely be kept by the community. The most recent article for deletion indicates it will not be. It was extensively discussed and the conclusion was that at the moment, the online movement outside of the Reddit community was not sufficiently well covered to justify inclusion as a topic in its own right and the term "involuntary celibacy" was not a term used in the literature, except in passing context. I saw nothing in the draft which would indicate that this had changed. Thanks again for your interest in building an encyclopedia, --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Certus UT (talk · contribs)
  • User:Certus UT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You just reviewed my article on the Carbon Canal and rejected it because it allegedly included copyrighted material based on another article that is nearly identical on another website. I wrote that article as well, and it was not expressly copyrighted. That is also why it is essentially identical. Since I am the author of both articles, and the intent of all parties involved in its posting on the other website was for the article to be published in two locations, how do I address your objection?

Certus UT (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certus UT: Thanks for the note and explanation! Indeed, you can donate your material to Wikipedia (keep in mind that this means licensing it under some conditions). Check out Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The easiest way to let Wikipedia use the material is to add a notice to the coal canal website that says the material is licensed for use, for example

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

There are also ways to email permission discussed on the Donating copyrighted materials page linked above. Let me know if you have any questions (you can post a note here) or I can help in any way (the content you wrote and formatted is not gone, merely hidden. If we have a compatible license, it can easily be unhidden.). Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Certus UT (talk · contribs)
  • User:Certus UT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the guidance! I've requested the "release" language be posted to the canal company web page with the identical article. Assuming they agree and post said language, how do I notify you all and resubmit the article?

Certus UT (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certus UT: Just let me know by posting a message here and I can take care of putting it in the main article space. It looks like a great article and the product of a lot of work. I do apologize for the difficulties with copyright. Thanks so much for all the time and effort! --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ray Iwazumi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisuke Suzuki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (a medical school) is now distinct from Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (a college/university with several schools). Both pages should exist, much like Creighton University School of Medicine (a medical school) and Creighton University (a college/university with several schools) coexist. Please take another look and let me know your thoughts. Trantorian (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trantorian: Thanks for the note! As I understand from the two articles, the school of medicine is a subsidiary school within the college, but this distinction is relatively recent, correct? If that's the case, the shared history should primarily be discussed in the College's article, and only briefly in the school's article. In any event, if you want to take on sorting it out, I can certainly see what you're getting at and will move the draft to the main space. Thanks again and if I can be of any help, please let me know. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: Thanks for following up! The School of Medicine has been a subsidiary of MCCMS since its founding in 1972. The recent development is that Mayo Medical School was renamed Mayo Clinic School of Medicine in 2016. I will see if I can make that clearer in the article.

Hey just dropping by to say thank you for the input!

I'm always looking for help. If you have any time I'd love to collaborate with you on a few articles. I could use your expertise! Thanks, you can visit my talk page to leave me a reply, its less busy than yours!--PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cskane (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Caroline Colucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cskane (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HI. am curious what is missing on my article? Let me know.

CskaneThird party response here. I probably would have declined it as well. Looking at what is provided for Ms. Colucci's career, the four talent agencies that she has signed up, none of them have wikipedia pages, not sure why *auditioning* for Fat Joe's video would make her notable, and the photographers she has worked for don't appear to be notable either and who she has met does nothing to show notability.Naraht (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cskane: I have to agree with Naraht here. There are a couple of requirements for a Wikipedia biography article, among them are notability and verifiability by independent, reliable sources. What is needed are, for example, news interviews with the subject of the article, or articles about her in published media. Let me know if this makes sense or if I can provide more information. Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the same topic as Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor or the more general version of Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer? TeaDrinker (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker, the new article "Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer" is more general and more comprehensive. "Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor" (ICP) deals with the same techical matter but only with regard to one of its particular brand names. Both articles may coexist but "ICP" should be linked to the new one. I just noticed that there is a third article about this subject called "Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer". It is hard to find, may be because of "electronic". I would suggest to delete it. It explicitly refers to accelerometers although IEPE is used in other sensor types as well. Also there are some doubtful numbers in it and no additional content. I think most users will look up the abbreviation "IEPE", not he full name. Thank you for your support Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBurg (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JanBurg: Thanks! Is there anything in the existing Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor or Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer articles that should be merged with the Draft:Integrated Electronics Piezo-Electric (IEPE) article? If so, we should move the existing article to a better title and then merge your draft into it. Otherwise, I can just move your draft into the main space and make the other articles redirects. Heron (talk · contribs) wrote the accelerometer article, and is still active on the project. They may have some ideas on how to handle this as well. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heron here. I agree that the draft should become the new article and the other two should become redirects. IEPE is the most general term, with ...sensor, ...accelerometer and ICP being hyponyms. Thanks for asking! --Heron (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I think I have got it moved around correctly. Let me know if there are any issues or I can help with anything else. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It fails to meet notability standards. None of the concerns expressed in the deletion discussion were met: there is literally zero independent WP:RS coverage of the organization[1]. What's worse is that the article was literally authored by the organization itself and the vast majority of sources are the organization itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: The article was draftified after the AfD by Killiondude (talk · contribs). You're right, it was the director of Project Censored who worked on it, and it was resubmitted. I advised MickeyHuff (talk · contribs) to declare a COI, but did not see a real problem with COI since he was editing under his own name. And really, it was us who dropped the ball on this one--even if what's in the article is not sufficient, a cursory search reveals plenty more reliable coverage. As far as notability, it is not only asserted it is well-demonstrated. Multiple books have been written highlighting the work product of the organization are mentioned in the article. A quick search finds articles commenting on their work, commemorating their 40 year history, commentary on the passing of their former director, and of course, articles talking about their findings. Heck, I even see the Iranian News Service citing them as a source and China News referencing their work.

My view is that we're here to write an encyclopedia, and deletion is not a remedy for notable organizations which are imperfectly written. My view re the AfC is that the notability was adequately demonstrated and so I moved the article to the main space. You're welcome to disagree, but I don't see the notability argument sticking. I'll add some more references to demonstrate notability, and feel free to contact me if you have any further concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The books are published by completely unknown publication houses. Anyone can publish a book anywhere. I did do a cursory search for mentions in several RS, and found no substantive coverage. These are all things that were brought up in the deletion discussion, and no one could substantiate that there was any substantive RS coverage of the organization despite assertions to the contrary. I have never heard of the "Iranian News Service" or "China News", and these can't be found through a Google Search. Please link to RS coverage of the organization, and please add it to the Wikipedia article. It's completely unacceptable that RS are not used to support the text in the Wikipedia article if the organization has indeed been covered by any non-fringe sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to "Iranian News Service" and "China News", you are talking about the propaganda outlets of the Iranian and Chinese regimes? And they don't even cite Project Censored in their news reporting, but in editorials. This is the RS coverage you have in mind? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: Seven Stories Press is not a "completely unknown publication house." I think your statement that you did a "cursory search" is accurate. It was only cursory. You found passing mention in reliable sources, but you did not find the multiple articles which cover the subject in depth. I linked some of those. You're correct that the use of Project Censored by US media critics, and by critics of US policy in state media overseas, does not alone establish notability, but it does demonstrate the breadth of the impact of the project. But the article, mentioning books and movies, should have clued you in that more independent sources were available. I am not sure why it did not. But I have added some to the article and I hope that settles your concern. --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. You found four local news stories about a local project over a 15 year span, and two editorials by the propaganda outlets of authoritarian regimes taking a stab at the US. Totally not a fringe organization. I'm gonna renominate this for deletion as soon as I figure out the most appropriate way to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gall to chide me for not locating local news stories and blatantly non-RS propaganda arm content about the organization! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: We are not an index of what's easily found on Google; ten minutes of googling is not a great way to assess notability. Local news stories are fine as reliable sources. I apologize if I come off as chiding, but to me, this is a softball when it comes to challenges we normally face in assessing notability. The fact that major state propaganda outlets reference them is significant, I think. Imagine you're a researcher in 50 years, trying to figure out where Iranian State Media got their information. Well shucks, it is right here in Wikipedia. In any event, I am happy to discuss the matter at an AfD and I can certainly continue to add more sources; they are not difficult to come by. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that my grandchildren will be amazed when they find out that one Iranian propaganda editorial cited an American fringe organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm aside, I will add a few more reliable sources to the article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project Censored, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page China News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me for my articule Draft:Emil Cerda, his references is reliable. Please, help me with the wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48730313. His references are real, so, help me to building that articule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santateresaio (talk • contribs)

@Santateresaio: Thanks for your note! I have taken the liberty of changing the link from {{}} to [[ ]] since the former transcludes the whole article, while the latter merely links to it. I'm afraid wikis in general (including Wikipedia and Wikidata) are not generally considered reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content. What you will have to find is independent sources, generally this entails in-depth coverage in the media. Hope this helps! --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already applied and researched thoroughly, and I put all the information in the references. Is something else missing? Santateresaio (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Santateresaio[reply]

@Santateresaio: Thanks! I looked over the article, but I'm afraid it still lacks adequate citations to be a Wikipedia article. It is possible you have included all the information that is available about the subject, however the article subject does not meet the notability requirement. It may be too early in his career to have a Wikipedia article. Let me know if I can help clarify further. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker:Hey, how's everything going? I was investigating thoroughly and there is still more about this article. It is not that it is very early in his career to be on Wikipedia, but, it is the media that want "reliable" information from him. That is, if you are on Wikipedia, you will be able to participate in many more formidable and large projects, you know that Wikipedia is important. Please, I ask you to consider my article. Santateresaio (talk)

@Santateresaio: Thanks for your continued work, however I don't see the article being created unless there are multiple independent reliable sources which cover the subject in depth. That has to come before it is included in Wikipedia. I understand that some folks use presence in Wikipedia as am indication of fame. However we can't use the need of the subject as a basis for approving articles. Also, if you're closely related to the subject, do check out our policy on conflicts of interest. Sorry I don't have better news. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: Fame? Never. I'm just looking for true sources. I ask for my consideration, and don't worry, I will continue improving the article. That yes, also verify the sources so you can see that they are verifiable. Santateresaio (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Santateresaio (talk)[reply]

@Santateresaio: Take a look at the guidelines on reliable sources, Verifiability, and notability for people. Hope this helps. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: I already uploaded the reliable references that were missing, I forgot to investigate further, it is true, but these references justify the veracity of the article. If you wish, you can check them one by one, for example, I didn't know that the subject had left on Globedia (the best page of journalists in Latin America), among other references that I added that I didn't know they were on the internet. Consider my article, I await your response. Thanks for everything.

@Santateresaio: I appreciate your work, but what you need is not more references to self-published sources, or more links to the subject's work. What you need is a demonstration that the subject is notable, as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources are usually independent news media. If the subject of the article has never been the subject of reports or news stories, it is likely they should not have a Wikipedia article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: Yes it does, and I posted it correctly in the article.

@Santateresaio: I don't see it. Blogs, wikis, Youtube, Spotify, etc. are almost never considered reliable sources. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: What are no reliable sources, sir? First, Globedia is an extremely reliable source, do you distrust Globedia? Second, Articulos.org is one of the most popular newspaper sites of all time, do you also distrust them? Third, Spotify, Itune, etc. they are only sources to link the discography, and if someone is on those platforms it is because he paid to be there and they buy his music. There is only one link to a blog, then the others are normal articles. There is even an article from a highly respectable editorial in Colombia. I forgot to add that Emil knows Miguel Franjul(the Director of Listin Diario, the most famous newspaper in the Dominican Republic). Notaes is also journalistic base of countries highly inherent in politics, so, it is a reliable source. Even i recited a fragment of a proverb of that author, his book, is not also reliable? Please, I don't violate any Wikipedia standard, if you see well, my article is highly aesthetic and well treated. Please, eminence, consider my article.

@Santateresaio: Globedia appears to be a Wiki-like source, articulo.org is "una poderosa herramienta de marketing tanto para empresas como para webmasters que desean aumentar sus visitas y visibilidad en Internet" (a marketing tool, not a newspaper site as you describe). On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. But if you're trying to use Wikipedia for advertising, it will not work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: I have never tried to associate with you (Wikipedia) for advertising purposes. You can not draw conclusions as if nothing, I just want to write articles and I see taboos to publish, if you want I will list articles with few references and untrustworthy sources (maybe you don't believe me, but it is like that). Globedia has never been like a Wiki, never, is a journalistic company of press and government notes associated with another company to inform the controversial and necessary to Latin Americans. Articulos.org is no longer a famous company of journalists founded in the United States, based in the Caribbean. They propose to become famous (interview, go to television, etc.) being professional journalists, not a mere pastime. Sir, I ask you to consider my article, I ask you. This article is well structured and you know it. Please, consider me. Sorry if I came to offend you, sir.

@Santateresaio: The article doesn't offend me, but it does not appear to meet the requirements in the policies and guidelines. Sorry if that is not the news you wanted. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker:But, sir, I don't violate any regulations, you yourself know. It is just a normal article, with reliable sources. For example, the https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Matos_(cantante). He only has two reliable sources, and then he has a blog and a page inexist, while my article has more reliable sources.

Please, I'm asking. This writer is very famous in his country and I think it is necessary to be in this wiki. Please, don't go injustice, I don't break any Wikipedia rule.

@Santateresaio: For what its worth, each language Wikipedia has its own rules. I don't know the Spanish Wikipedia's rules, but I do know the English Wikipedia rules. And the subject of your article does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and the sources do not appear to meet WP:RS. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: I don't violate any regulations. The sources are fine, the templates too and the spelling, don't know what you find handy? Put yourself in my shoes when you try to contribute something, without breaking any rule, and have someone tell you that it is not true. I ask you to consider my article because in one I have seen you humility, humanity and correspondence regarding the deal. My article is excellent, why not accept it? I ask you, eminence, listen to my call.

@Santateresaio: Objectively, the sources are not fine and the subject of the article is not notable. That is my final decision on the draft as it stands now, and I daresay would be the assessment of anyone else in the article review process. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: Look, excellence, I am a Hispanic communicator and it hurts me to see how important is not given importance. One thing is what you perceive, and another thing is what you don't see. There are many talents out there, and believe me, I know because maybe in your life you have seen yourself with obstacles, with strong decisions. I ask you because I see in you humility, generosity, respectable person and person to follow. Forgive me if I came to offend, and lose if I am annoying, but as a communicator my duty is to give way to what is important, as much as you, we know that talent starts from the matrix. I repeat it, I trust you. Consider my article, please, excellence. I ask you as a woman and respectable person.

Understandably, repeated deletions of an article can be considered when rejecting new drafts in the interest of mitigating Wikipedia "spamming". However, while I was aware of the deleted RaiBlocks articles, I did not author or edit and had only briefly skimmed the now deleted articles for RaiBlocks before writing drafts of Nano (cryptocurrency), formerly known as RaiBlocks. As such, the criticism that these editions is "very little in addition" to previous entries which were rejected or deleted for reasons of notability/lack of reliable sourcing falls short of objectivity due to the non-transparent nature of the previous articles or drafts (which were deleted). "Diffing" or using a MinHash implementation such as tlsh to compare the current with previous articles would likely support the assertion that I am not the original author. Wikipedia admins with access to server logs with my ip address could probably confirm this as well (though I do not wish to "out" myself, due to security concerns surrounding the cryptocurrency market).

Since the rest of the community does not have access to the deleted versions or the logs, could you expand a bit on the purported lack of significance of my previous submission? With respect to my most recent submission, Forbes, Fortune and TechCrunch all strike me as notable and reliable sources.

Bitcoin-centric sites include more articles relevant to the topic, but I wanted to focus on sources from the mainstream press from the get-go. Including translations, a Google site search of cointelegraph.com returns 35+ articles from January and February 2018. 13 pages on coindesk.com (from December, January and February). 1 article from bitcoinmagazine.com. With the exception of the multi-million dollar BitGrail hack, most of these are mere mentions of RaiBlocks/Nano. It wouldn't be hard to criticize contributors to the bitcoin-centric news sites of marketing or market manipulation. But these are also source which the mainstream press routinely cite (e.g., CNBC), so repeated mentions on sites like coindesk are significant elements to consider in accepting the draft submission, even though their inclusion in the article itself would constitute either insignificant/redundant information or original research in compiling the relevant statistical analysis.

The most in-depth coverage of RaiBlocks/Nano has been on themerkle.com, but I purposely avoided that source until David Z. Morris cited an article on that domain because previous editors didn't seem to find that content significant or verifiable. I do not and have not held a significant stake in Nano. I am however interested in questioning the lack of diversity in code and the overall lack of exploring or commenting on the code base within the greater community of 1000+ cryptocurrencies, of which a large percentage are shelled out with precarious ICO funding, inefficient programming languages or simply forked from bitcoin.

The repeated draft rejections and inconsistency with respect to inclusion of other cryptocurrencies lead me to believe that there is an apparent lack of interest and a subjective stance against Nano or cryptocurrencies in general on the part of the editors who have reviewed Nano and RaiBlocks article submissions. A more objective approach in reinforcing anti-spam policies might be to store tlsh hashes of deleted articles when scheduling them for deletion, retaining the hash after deletion. In lieu of this, a more descriptive summary comparing editions would be greatly appreciated. That said, the comments from this rejection are much more acceptable than the ignorance expressed in the glib, sophomoric criticisms from the previous reviewer ("yet another bitcoin ad" and "if it quacks like a duck"[deleted]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptolyzer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I see that your draft is different from the one that was rejected by AfD. Establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies is challenging and we currently have no single standard that is agreed upon, and to compound this, such articles often become targets of intensive promotional "adjustments" which lead to a lot of unhappy (volunteer) editors. While this latter point is not itself a reason for deletion, it does make it a contentious issue. I will add a comment to this effect to the draft and see if another user is willing to move it into the article space. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PTMY (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Unihertz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Unihertz Draft. Would it make sense to change it to a page about Jelly and Jelly Pro, the "world's smallest 4G smart phone," because that got more coverage? If so, would you suggest starting fresh, or re-purposing the current page? Thanks.

PTMY (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PTMY: It is possible, I think it stands a better chance than the company, but world's smallest 4G smartphone (for the moment) is not much in the way of notability either. There are just a lot of consumer electronic products, each with *something* unique about them, but not really the stuff that normally is documented in an encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker: Do you think Fairphone should be deleted, for the same reasons given for not publishing this new page? PTMY (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you approved Dangjia village. There's a leftover draft at Draft:Dang village so that should be scrubbed or deleted. Not sure how much it has improved since those rejected versions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Thanks, I have deleted it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've edited Arctic Zero article following your comments and would like to ask for your expert advice. Do you think that further edits are needed? Thanks. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Certus UT (talk · contribs)
  • User:Certus UT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'm following up on your review of my article on the Carbon Canal and the copyright/patent issue associated with its posting on another website. The other website has now posted "release" language at the bottom of the web page on which the article appears. You can find that here: http://carboncanalcompany.com/carbon-canal-history

Please, let me know if this resolves the copyright/patent issue or if additional action is necessary to move the article forward in the review process.

Regards, Certus_UT

Certus UT (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @@Certus UT: Thanks for your note! I have restored the article and moved it into the main article space at Carbon Canal. Great work and thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''Political Economy of Research & Innovation''. Since you had some involvement with the 'Political Economy of Research & Innovation' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lindseyweeks (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thank you so much for your review. I humbly request your assistance in deleting the old pages Ovarian Cancer Research Fund and Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and replacing with the new page, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance. The two former organizations were merged together to form the latter. All of the info on the older pages is now outdated. I created the new entry for Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance because I thought I had to do that - create a whole new entry and then delete the old ones - rather than make extensive edits and a name change to one of the old entries. Apologies if I misunderstood and went about this the wrong way. Please let me know what you'd need from me to make this happen and thank you again. Lindsey Lindseyweeks (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindseyweeks (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just bumping this up - would it be possible to merge the current Ovarian Cancer Research Fund page into the new draft, located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ovarian_Cancer_Research_Fund_Alliance? I originally started editing the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund page but read somewhere that it wouldn't be possible to change the name of the full article to Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance so created a whole new page. Thanks for your help, Lindsey Lindseyweeks (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Billybon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Laura Haim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… Many thanks for your help. Best,

Billybon (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TeaDrinker, I am currently engaged in some disagreement with the original draft submitter for the article Mayo Clinic School of Medicine. I saw that you had reviewed the draft of this article. I have engaged the other user in discussion on the talk page, however, we still disagree on certain content to the point where we have gone past the WP:3R. I think that having a third party review would be helpful to improve the article. Could you help by taking another look at the current page and page history^[1] to help break our slow-motion edit war? Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeaDrinker, I'm not sure if the mention in the talk page alerted you already, so posting here too. Perhaps you could look at a debate about characterization of guidance on mercury in Sablefish discussed at length at bottom of talk page. Cheers, --IGTaylor (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chom chom is originate fron Bangladesh,then how it can be discribed as Indian dish!Very very unusual and low selfish motive,Chom chom is only only Bangladeshi dish" Jobair khondoker (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeaDrinker, I'm reaching out because you were instrumental in editing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Censored before. I have previously listed a conflict of interest on my user page so I didn't think that editing the page for accuracy would be an issue but after updating the page with the current yearbook information for the year user: Marquardtika is saying that we can not update it. Marquardtika has reversed our edit twice now. I'm hoping that you might take a look at the edit and possibly update the page yourself with the most current information regarding the newest Project Censored Book, or at least take a look at the situation. Appreciate any assistance with this and take care! ~~MickeyHuff~~

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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I really appreciate your approach to editing on Wikipedia. I am very new and hope to communicate with editors that seem as thoughtful and kind as you. I also love tea, I too am an Earl Grey fan but lately I've been experimenting with more fruitier combinations -- I don't know what's gotten into me! LOL Drwho92 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeaDrinker,

I don't think we've met before. I just deleted Draft:Emil Cerda Demorizi today as a CSD G13 and it had some pretty far-fetched claims for the young man who was the subject of the draft. I then came across Draft:Emil Cerda which was created by a different editor and when I went through their other contributions, I found they had a pretty involved discussion with you about an earlier version of this draft which was later deleted, also as a stale draft. The draft has since been recreated by, I'm guessing, either sockpuppets of the Cerda or a paid editing service. Your discussion was a couple of years ago and I just wanted to know if you remembered this exchange and had an opinion of whether this draft should be tagged as promotional. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy this cup of green tea. Seems appropriate since your name is literally "TeaDrinker". Have fun, keep editing! ~WashyLieshy

WashyLieshy (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:TeaDrinker, Stop framing, defaming and falsely accusing me solely on the basis of your speculations as you did here [2]. That's clearly misusing the power Admin abuse.

If you researched it properly, then you would have found out that the matter has already been discussed and we have reached a result, though the discussion panel is still open. Moreover, people have already started making changes to the page in question, as per some suggestions by me.

What if I speculate that you are a sockpuppet of some other user who were trying to frame me? Get your facts clear first.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and it is not an action I take lightly. I take no position on the editing of the article. However the similarity between your own and the newly created account seems pretty strong. Thanks for alerting me to various discussions. Be aware that my block of the other user did not change your current block settings. Although I certainly understand your concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:TeaDrinker Kindly read this, especially at the end. [3] You will understand that I reached a consensus with the opposing point of views.

I checked the suspected account User:Wjsbb but it has been blocked. So could not check the similarities that you are mentioning. Though I read the editing summary by this account. See, every 5 to 6th person in the world is an Indian and can have the thoughts that the said account has. But I have already reached a consensus which is different from what this account is saying regarding different articles for Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi Films. Though as an Indian, I also have utmost respect for our soldiers.

Also, I am afraid your speculation will definitely affect my account, as I am also educating myself on the Wikipedia policies. This will get my I.P address affected, may also be blocked. Kindly check if my I.P has been affected as you are an admin yourself and please sort it out.

Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe message or error you're running into which relates to my block? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting any message or error yet but my name is flashing here [4] as you mentioned it. It can make other admins think that I have done something wrong, just as you thought. This can affect my unblock process in near future. If you think this will not affect the unblock process, I will mention you in the unblock request in case any admin will raise this issue of sock.

Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that you feel your reputation was impugned. Should it come up again, I will be happy to discuss the evidence I see for a sockpuppet account being used. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a harmony exchange is important Africantalentz (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Correct grammar is also important, and you have consistently changed grammar from correct to incorrect. This is not helpful and is considered vandalism. Continuing to do so will result in a block from editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Robert Earl Richardson, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Can you describe your concerns regarding the article in more detail? Is your concern about notability, or about verifiability of what is presently in the article? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I think this is a mea culpa situation. I'd forgotten that had only the one reference and had meant to get back to it. The notability is pretty easy to establish as co-discoverer of so many taxa (although his collaborators always seemed to get the limelight). Added a bit more. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeaDrinker. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert Earl Richardson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeaDrinker. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kristin Jones, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeaDrinker. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kristin Jones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeaDrinker. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Kristin Jones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Liz (talk · contribs): Thanks, although I think this went to the wrong user. I think the draft in question was started by Dominic (talk · contribs). --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]