User talk:Pbritti
|
||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Online meet - November 12, 2024
[edit]
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
We will host an online meet for Wikipedia users from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 12, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. We will have reports from WikiConference North America 2024. We hope to organize a North American Hub to support local activities. Anyone interested in the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitaion list. Thanks.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Article title
[edit]If I wanted to break out the Background section of Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) talking about the three previous cathedrals into their own article, how would you recommend titling it? I don't think they each merit their own article, but one more extended article about the three would work. Historic Cathedrals of Saint Paul, Minnesota? Former Cathedrals of Saint Paul, Minnesota? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro: Typically, you use the dates of construction. In this case, since you are covering three buildings that (if I understand this right) occupied the same location, you may want to do "Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota, [Date of construction of first cathedral]–[Date of demolition of third cathedral])". Let me know if you need additional support on that! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- They were not all on the same location; as a matter of fact, I think none of them were. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, shoot. You might need to ask the hivemind at Teahouse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- They were not all on the same location; as a matter of fact, I think none of them were. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 65
[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024
- Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
- Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
- Tech tip: Mass downloads
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
[edit]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,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
A request
[edit]Hi Pbritti. I am hoping I can get your assessment of something. I recently had a couple interactions with another editor that the other editor interpreted as uncivil. I thought I had a pretty good sense of communicating clearly. Normally I'd let this kind of criticism wash off my back, but this editor is a longstanding and very experienced editor, so it made me wonder if I need to recalibrate how I'm communicating. Here are the comments the editor objected to:
- This comment was described as
ripped my head off
- This question was described as
uncivil
andobviously intended to A. Be insulting and B. Be inflammatory and C. Intend to wound.
I am not here to get you involved in any discussion with the other editor or stir up drama, and I have no plans to escalate anything. AFAICT the discussion is closed. But since I respect your opinion and the way you interact with others, it would just be helpful to get a neutral read on whether my comments are coming across in a way I don't realize. This is for my own awareness only. Thank you in advance! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)