User talk:Blahma

by all means, add to the article! just curious, what country did you represent at ISEF2005 phoenix? PeregrineAY July 3, 2005 11:11 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 21:00, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Blahma. Thank you for your suggestion. Battle of Austerlitz should have been featured on the MainPage yesterday. I wish I had seen your msg earlier. I've just moved your msg to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 2 so that I can see it next year. The next time you have a good anniversary to propose for the MainPage, please leave a msg on the talk page of "Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Month Day#" for that day. I usually check the talk page when I update each day's template. Thanks. -- PFHLai 21:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blahma! I've just created a new template to indicate English Wikipedia users who also contribute to the Czech Wikipedia.

Template:User wikics

Feel free to add it to your userboxes if you like it (and if you actually contribute). Happy Easter. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for correcting my error on positive-definite matrix. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Entropa.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Entropa-detail.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Entropa-detail-rectangular.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have an opportunity, would you be able to get a version of File:Entropa-Bulgaria.jpg, taken from the same alignment and now covered up (for before, and after comparison). Many Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. I will go to Brussels tomorrow, although I am not sure if I will have the opportunity to go to Justus Lipsius. Otherwise, I would try to find another opportunity soon. Blahma (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entropa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just a quick note to let you know I have reverted your recent changes to Euro; in my opinion, this contribution does require to be sourced. If you need help adding references, please do not hesitate in asking.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Miguel.mateo, I have added the sources now directly into the article. First, I thought it would be enough to have the fact sourced in the article Germain Pirlot itself, but now I realize that it needs to be duplicated also in the Euro article. Note that I also own a copy of the letter (referred to in Germain Pirlot) which is the first level source in which the EC thanks to Pirlot for his suggestion. If that would be necessary, I can either add that source to the Euro article as well, or even publish the copy somewhere so that others can check it, but for now I consider the news article (which makes a reference to the letter, among others) as a sufficient source for the information. Thanks for your care and cooperation. Blahma (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you recent additions are great and we do not need to add any more sources. Thanks for your quick reply and good addition to the article. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Conference on the Application of Esperanto in Science and Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Espero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zamenhof-Esperanto object, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bust and Place (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely is something we working at WP:MED need to look at with the collaboration with TWB. Here is our progress with the medical articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT With the overview here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force. Another issue we have is that the translators are not used to MediaWiki markup and break it form time to time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You had a question "was something alike before?". I want to remind (tell) you about CoSyne. Unfortunately, the project is ended and I can't see a working instrument. But the idea was similar and good. Infovarius (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Microsoft Office, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for bringing the SYNTH rule to my attention, because in spite of having edited for almost 10 years (though mainly on eowiki and cswiki), I have not heard about it so far. Still, after reading the description of the rule, I cannot understand in which way my edit might be considered a synthesis, i.e. original research.

The two statements that consitute the sentence "Microsoft Office 2010 [is named] Office 14.0, because [version] 13.0 was skipped [link to triskaidekaphobia]" are

A: "Microsoft Office 2010 is named 14.0 [in contrast to the previous version which was 12.0]" (that information was already present in the article before my edit) and

B: "triskaidekaphobia is a common reason for skipping number 13" (this can be found in the Wikipedia article on triskaidekaphobia).

The new piece of information in my edit is implying a relation between A and B.

However, the implied relation of A and B has, in my opinion, been properly sourced and the statement does appear as a whole in the source, cf.: "The company skipped 13 for superstitious (i.e. fun) reasons." In a related article, I have even discovered an additional source, in which the skip is put into relation with the superstition even in the article's title ("Microsoft to skip “unlucky” Office 13"). The latter source quotes a Microsoft employee as having said: "but that’s is an unlucky number so we’re going to skip Office 13 and call the next one Office 14". In your opinion, why does this fail to qualify as reliable sources publishing the same argument in relation to the topic of the article? --Blahma (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to write the reply and your due diligence.

I wouldn't have reverted you if you had supplied the APCMag source. The source claims to have interviewed with Jensen Harris, Group Program Manager for Microsoft’s Office User Experience Team, so we can at least attribute it to a certain person.

The source that you inserted, however, is Paul Thurrott's personal blog and reflects his own opinion. He didn't claim to have interviewed with anybody and this Microsoft fan does not himself go out there to interview with people. He just has seen the jump from 12 to 14 and assumed it was for either superstition or fun. If he had supplied a source, he'd have become a secondary source, something that Wikipedia loves. But he hasn't, therefore, his blog has become a primary source for a personal opinion (OR); it is already a WP:SPS. WP:NOT#OR has more on this.

Again, thanks for the due diligence.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks for the patient and detailed explanation. I have now put the fact back with this second, "better" source. Obviously, the two other wikis I have been active in follow lower standards, because I have never seen such a deep analysis of sources like the one you have just demonstrated, nor have I seen someone trying to reconstruct the thinking processes of a source's author while evaluating its credibility. Thank you for providing links to further reading on the policies valid at this wiki. Also, unlike you, I am not a subject matter expert and I am not native to the English-speaking world, so it's not that straightforward at all for me to tell the credibility of "winsupersite.com" and "apcmag.com" compared (they might easily be blogs both, if judging only by domain name and website design).

Most importantly, however, when including the number 13 statement and quoting winsupersite.com as source, I was just copying a piece of information that was already present (same fact, same source) in another article – which you have also been editing in the past – Microsoft Office 2010. Actually, it had been there, "unremarked" (until I replaced it today, following your judgement), for more than 5(!) years – although it used to say "presumably" for the first few months – and the supposition that 13.0 was skipped because of triskaidekaphobia has even been a part of the article from its very beginning (7 years).

I know that Wikipedia will never be perfect and that there are still things in it that should not be there, but I point to that edit history in order to further justify the good faith of my edit. Because, believe me, it really feels somewhat uncomfortable if you just copy a sourced sentence from one article to another (believing it ought to be there as well and that you can't break anything by doing so) but your edit gets reverted immediately and you are told that you have to choose your sources more wisely next time. I do not believe that you meant to hurt me, but it is getting more and more difficult for me to imagine how a newbie could make a useful edit (other than fixing a typo) if the level is set that high. But that'd be already for another discussion and English Wikipedia probably does not need to attract new contributors so badly as the Czech or Esperanto ones.

Anyway, I appreciate your care of the Microsoft related articles here and thank you for your willingness to discuss these "cultural differences" with me here. Regards, --Blahma (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I remember having removed the sentence in Office 2010 article. But I don't know when it came back. (Or maybe the day that I removed it, my change wasn't saved. Well, hard to tell.)

But you said something that I think I must comment on: "Trying to reconstruct the thinking processes of a source's author" isn't what I did. It is a dangerous form of original research. I just asked two questions: What is the source? What is the source of the source? In case of APC, the second question's answer is: Allegedly, Jensen Harris. In case of Paul, however, the second question has no answer. But, yes, we did investigate about the credibility of Paul's website and how he gathers his information. Now, we do know that whenever he does not supply a source for himself, the information has come from himself.

Oh, and by the way, you don't need to put talkback notice in my talk page every time you reply here. Your reply appears on my watchlist.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monkey Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monkey Business. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have "fixed" the link, but please see my comment for this edit. I am not knowledgeable enough about English idioms to dare adding "monkey business" as an alias into the lead paragraph of mischief, so the sentence in the disambiguation page making a relation of monkey business to mischief still remains the most explicit information that Wikipedia can provide. --Blahma (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on ACTIVE requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The Dissident Aggressor 17:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Very nice investigation. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I made this discovery using a dedicated algorithm to discover possible hoaxes that I had made for this purpose, being inspired by another recently discovered hoax. Following this discovery, I have assembled a small team of volunteers willing to check more suspected articles. Therefore, more discoveries may come soon. --Blahma (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the 'we' in your prod. Keep up the good work - there's bound to be more out there still that have been overlooked for years, but are b***** obvious when the right eyes look at them... Peridon (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

for your work on Morgan Dee Voon. An added point is that neither Morgan nor Dee are very likely names for a girl in Moravia at that time. Morgan is a Welsh name, and has only comparatively recently been used by females (apart from the legendary Morgan(a) le Fay), and Voon doesn't look right for that area either - possibly Dutch or Asian (Thailand, Indochina etc). Double e I don't associate with the languages of what is now the Czech Republic. And as you said, 'very little is known about...' is a killer. Why do they put that in, and emphasise the fact that nothing is known about it? Peridon (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome and I am glad that you have found my discovery interesting. In my argumenting, I wanted to stick only to factual proofs, but linguistic assumptions definitely play a part too. I actually happen to live in Brno, Czech is my mother tongue and I am conversant in German. My guess is that "Dee" and "Voon" are puns on the noble ranks "de" and "von". "Morgan" might sound alike the German word "Morgen". --Blahma (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added the page to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, where it ranks 11th by length of existence. It needs an administrator to properly archive the page using the instructions provided there. Could I ask you to do this, so the article's text is visible again for archival purposes? --Blahma (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope I've done that right. I've also removed her from Talk:List of female scientists before the 21st century/missing articles which appears to be a list of articles to be added somewhere. Found it by accident while dredging up the hoax article. I've linked to the archived article in the table of hoaxes. BTW do you agree with my 'linguistic analysis' of the name? Peridon (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the task. Please move the page to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Morgan Dee Voon (remove the placeholder "HOAX TITLE/" that you have included in its current name), unprotect the old names and protect the correct ones. I agree with your reasoning on the etymology of the names. I have never heard of anyone called "Morgan" in Czech or Austrian context, particularly of the 19th century. --Blahma (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Knew I'd get something wrong... Sorted. Protection seems to follow the move. I also reckoned she'd be 'Voonova' if it was a Czech or Moravian name, just as Pešek becomes Peškova and Navratil becomes Navratilova. (I have met a non-notable Navratil, and had the pleasure of meeting a definitely notable Pešek.) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

After the move now, everything seems OK. I have written up a short story about this discovery for my user page. You are right that in Czech she would be Voonová and that is also how I mock nickname her when talking about her fate to my peers these days. Just take notice of the accute diacritical mark that makes the last vowel sound longer; and that Czech identity actually covers both Bohemian (from Bohemia) and Moravian (from Moravia) and that only the first of the three is also a language. There has been a famous female tennis player called Navrátilová. As for my part, I did not know before that Morgan was of Welsh origin. --Blahma (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marek, just read about your Wikimedian in Residence project in the Signpost and then dug around its pages a bit. Looks great! I have also been active at the interface between Wikimedia and research and would be happy to join forces if you see opportunities to do so. I understand Czech fairly well but can't produce it properly. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This note is only delivered to English Wikipedia subscribers of the visual editor's newsletter.

The location of the visual editor's preference has been changed from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences on this wiki. The setting now says Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. This aligns en.wiki with almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta phase” though.

This action has not changed anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab is still after the “Edit source” one. You can learn more at the visual editor’s talk page.

We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case your account no longer has the settings that you want, please accept our apologies and correct it in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thank you for your attention, Elitre (WMF) -16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blahma, I saw your message on Melissa Highton's Talk page. I'm the current Wikimedian in Residence at University of Edinburgh. In a weird coincidence, I have reached out just this week to speak to another Wikimedian in Residence, Kelly Doyle, WiR at West Virginia University so I am happy to share good practice if you would like to? The project page for the University of Edinburgh residency is here: Wikipedia:University of Edinburgh and my blog is here: http://www.thinking.is.ed.ac.uk/wir. All the best! Stinglehammer (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

How to switch between editing environments

Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.

Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1874.2 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Zamenhof-Esperanto objects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TenTen Corpus Family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Spanish (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) 08:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blahma! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:46, Wednesday, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A new wikimedian in residence table should soon be implemented based on data from outreach:Wikimedian_in_residence (draft table). If there are any WiRs you know that are missing, please add them. In the meantime, see the map! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

2020-11-30T17:44:58 Delivery of "Tech News: 2020-49" to User talk:Blahma failed with an error code of contenttoobig

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month. Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
• A large A/B test will start soon. This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself. You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

• Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
• The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Svatý Antonínek, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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. John B123 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Blahma. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Svatý Antonínek, 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) 20:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Blahma. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Svatý Antonínek".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The section In Medicine of Psalm 51: I feel it is too much detail. I'd understand telling a reader with interest in the medical history that it comes from the psalm, but who of readers interested in the psalm will be interested in this detail? You probably know about WP:BRD. Why not talk about it on the article talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Czech dictionaries indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Estonian dictionaries indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article E@I is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E@I until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Slovak genealogy indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 03:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)