User talk:Iss246

Archives

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Iss246, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profile of ISS246's contributions to Wikipedia.

Here is a page that enables the reader to view the number of hits on each Wikipedia entry: Hits per Wikipedia page

Provides profile of any Wikipedian's contributions: A Quick Summary

I have opened a case at the noticeboard to get other uninvolved and independent editors to mediate in our dispute at the psychology article. Hoping this helps us resolve the situation. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romilly, Loir-et-Cher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Miles.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Occupational Health Science (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation likely Wp:TOOSOON.

This criticism is bullshit. The journal is indexed by the Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, and Scopus. Iss246 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the journal's first three years, it was not indexed by PsycInfo. In the last two years, PsycInfo administrators decided to index the journal, indicating its notability. I will improve the page over time. My preference is to build the entry little by little, day by day. My MO has been to edit WP articles bit by bit. Rather than all at once. Iss246 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the creation of a page dedicated to this journal. The journal is now well-indexed. The Editor-in-Chief is a remarkable occupational health researcher. Many great figures of occupational health science have already published articles there. The journal applies high standards for research quality, which is a key concern for OHP researchers and practitioners. It is important that the journal gets visibility on WP. And the creation of this page does not cause harm to anyone, does it?Ohpres (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupational Health Science (journal) 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/Occupational Health Science (journal) 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.

Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal Occupational Health Science (OHES) should not be deleted. This peer-reviewed journal has been in existence for five years. Recently administrators at the American Psychological Association's PsycInfo indexing group decided to include in this preeminent psychology index articles the journal publishes. OHES has become an important outlet for papers associated with the field of occupational health psychology (OHP). The other main OHP outlets are Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. OHES covers work-related physical and mental health, particularly in relation to psychosocial working conditions. OHES also covers job stress, workplace safety, and accidents. From the editor-in-chief through to the associate edtors and the editorial board, the figures who shape the journal are researchers with expertise in working conditions, job stress, safety, burnout, work-related, financial strain, etc.

Here some examples of articles that were recently accepted for publication: Musculoskeletal Health and Perceived Work Ability in a Manufacturing Workforce; Effects of Social and Occupational Stress, and Physical Strain on Suicidal Ideation Among Law Enforcement Officers; Job Insecurity during an Economic Crisis: the Psychological Consequences of Widespread Corporate Cost-Cutting Announcements. Respected researchers are the authors. The journal has become too notable to be threatened with deletion. Iss246 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iss246,

I've been thinking about you recently, since I ran across a mass-media article talking about burnout. The definition given was (from memory) "a mismatch in expectations" about your work. That is, your employer says it will trade you (e.g.,) a dependable paycheck, a desk in an air-conditioned office building, and a supply of colleagues who are somewhat less likely to be axe murders than average (but perhaps more likely than usual to complain about the state of the air conditioning), in return for you engaging in certain activities, coping with a certain amount of bureaucracy, and generally trying to keep your employer from going bankrupt. You, on the other hand, believe that your job will provide you with a satisfying social life, give meaning and purpose to your life, result in admiration for whichever qualities you value the most, give you opportunities for additional prestige, promotions, and pay raises, and generally result in you getting paid for doing what you love.

What appeals to me about this is that it has the potential for differentiating between depression and burnout; it might explain culture-based and generation-scale trends in burnout rates (assuming any exist); and it suggests avenues for class-based research (because a working-class person tends to have different, and perhaps more realistic, expectations of intangible workplace benefits than a Wunderkind, and this might even help understand non-workplace effects on workplace satisfaction). It also, very appealingly, suggests fairly simple solutions, namely setting realistic expectations and then getting a life outside of work. What doesn't appeal to me about it is that it feels like someone else just making up yet another definition.

So I am here to ask: Has any progress been made on what, exactly, the One True™ definition of burnout is? Is there any hope of reaching such a definition during the current decade? Or is this one of those Alice in Wonderland situations, in which the meaning of a word is whatever I want it to be, and language is used to conceal our real thoughts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing. Dear WhatamIdoing, thank you for the thoughtful note. Rotenstein et al. (Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., Rosales, R. C., Guille, C., Sen, S., & Mata, D. A. (2018). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review. JAMA, 320(11), 1131-1150. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12777) in their review of research on BO in doctors found 142 different definitions of BO, indicating that there is no consensus regarding what BO is. There is also a problem regarding whether BO is identifiable as a diagnosis or should be treated dimensionally (as a continuum like, say, temperature). As for depression, it has long been a diagnosis, but research at the frontiers of the field of psychopathology suggest it is better represented as a dimension, with only people at the high end of the continuum meeting criteria for a diagnosis (e.g., Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: A quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42(5), 903-920. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711001966). When BO and depression are both treated dimensionally, interesting results emerge.

Sure organizational culture and workplace demands have an impact on the worker. There is a growing body of research that the level of adversity in working conditions is related to.elevations in scores on BO scales (and there are several, the MBI, CBI, SMBM, etc.) and scores on depression scales (PHQ-9, CES-D, etc.), which are treat depression dimensionally. There is evidence that the core feature of BO, exhaustion, is highly correlated with scores on depressive symptom scales although those correlations bounce around from sample to sample, which is to be expected.

You mentioned class-based research. You make an excellent point. Perhaps there is a difference between the average correlations between BO scales and depression scales in blue and white collar jobs. That is a proposition worth exploring. The samples in most BO research have involved nurses, physicians, teachers, etc. It would be good to explore the results of studies involving blue collar workers. Iss246 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mismatch idea is interesting. Person-environment fit theory bears on that. Interest in the theory has waned as theories such at the demand-control-support model {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_health_psychology#Demand-control-support_model} emerged. The DCS model has been more productive in yielding valid results. It would be interesting to learn if members of the working class have more realistic expectations of their jobs. Bear in mind that they may have, on average, more realistic expectations (and I don't know that for a fact), but if the jobs have adverse environments (e.g., little control over the tasks they engage in), the jobs will still have baleful effects on their physical and mental health. Iss246 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these two models seen as conflicting? I'm thinking that they might fit together nicely: If I've been raised to expect a high level of control on the job and that, in fact, it was perfectly plausible for me to be the US president, and I take a job in retail sales and discover that I have almost no control over anything, then I'm likely to be a poor fit for that environment. If (here I am thinking of a conversation I had decades ago, with a woman who had grown up on a small, poverty-level farm) you were raised with a very clear and explicit expectation that you have to do whatever the boss says, when the boss says to do it, exactly the way the boss says to do it, even if you think your ideas are better, then I would expect you to be a better fit for a low-control environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing. The models are mostly conflicting. Low control is toxic whether over the long run low control is expected or not. Having a job with low control is largely toxic. I once had job in manufacturing. I was a tool and die operator. The work was repetitive. I knew that coming in. The work was awful and tiring. Drudgery. That I expected the work to have low control did not make the job any better. The reality of work overpowers the expectations. Iss246 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are people who spend their careers in manufacturing and appear to thrive in it. At least, when I worked in a factory, I saw people who seemed happy to come to work and who had been there for decades. I couldn't speak to the long-term experience personally, as I was only there for a few weeks during summer vacation, but I wouldn't have described it as toxic in a psychological sense. (Another part of the factory floor used some glues that might have been toxic in other ways, but as the newbie, I wasn't allowed anywhere near anything complicated or expensive like that.) I spent most of my time clicking snaps shut. It was certainly repetitive, and the level of choice I had basically amounted to deciding whether I'd start on the left side of the pile or the right side of the pile, but I wouldn't have described it as awful or drudgery, and it wasn't really any more tiring than you'd expect for any job that involves standing up all day. I probably would have gotten bored eventually, but that's not quite the same thing, and the long-term staff around me seemed to have found other ways to keep their interest up, such as chatting with their neighbors. I was usually facing the inspection table, and I spent several weeks watching two or three older women do their job without ever figuring out how they did it. They would stare at a cart full of identical items piled on top of each other, and then either wheel it away, or suddenly fish out a couple of pieces.

Getting back to our articles, it sounds like nobody knows what burnout really is, and therefore nobody knows what causes it. In fact, all studies about cause are going to be 'wrong', because I'll determine that burnout is caused by the weather, but since I'm using my own definition, then this research doesn't apply to the other 141 definitions – assuming that my research is replicable anyway, and the odds are low on that point in general. On the other hand, it also means that whatever a source writes about burnout is True™, because there probably is one scenario, using one definition, for which the statement is relevant. You'd have to prove a claim wrong for 142 definitions times thousands of situations before being able to say that it is definitely, completely, absolutely false.

It reminds me of the problem of Multiple chemical sensitivity, which is defined in practice as

1. Patient feels bad.
2. Patient blames 'chemicals'.

The only difference is that under burnout, the patients are blaming 'work' instead of 'chemicals' for the fact that they feel bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing. That people remain in highly repetitive jobs that provide little control over the tasks they perform does that mean they thrive in those jobs. There are reasons why people remain in such jobs. One is that there are often barriers to changing jobs. Siegrist underlined those barriers in explaining why individuals remain in jobs in which there is an imbalance between the effort they put into their work is incommensurate with the tangible and intangible rewards they get from the job. I add that Arthur Kornhauser in his book The Mental Health of the Industrial Worker shows that many many in low-control, repetitive jobs have dreams of doing something different like starting a small farm but don't have the resources to make such a move. Iss246 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupational Health Science 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/Occupational Health Science (2nd nomination) 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.

Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Xegma was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Xegma(talk) 06:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iss246! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Xegma(talk) 06:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal). Thanks! Xegma(talk) 06:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Firstly, the referencing is a bit of a mess. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes structured in the usual manner.

Secondly, the sources are all primary, and therefore insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. If special WP:NJOURNALS notability is being claimed instead, please provide clear evidence of how this journal meets one of the three criteria. Note that we need not just assertions, but actual evidence of this: eg. the draft states that this journal is indexed by Scopus, but I find nothing to support that; similarly, an impact factor of 3.1 is claimed, but this is only given by the publisher's own website (and even then, isn't actually cited, so I had to go and look for it myself).

Especially given the earlier and fairly recent AfD discussion which resulted in deletion, for this draft to be accepted the journal must be shown to be clearly notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above, the references are in the style of the American Psychological Association. WP allows editors to use the style of the discipline to which the topic is aligned. Occupational Health Science, although trans-disciplinary, is mostly aligned with the discipline of occupational health psychology and is supported by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. The APA style of the references is, therefore, satisfactory.

In addition, the complaint about the impact factor is off the mark. To find out the impact of any journal, an editor has to go to the publisher's journal site. That is what I did. That would apply to the journal Occupational Health Psychology or to Psychological Review. I have no reason to believe that Springer would falsify the impact factor. Iss246 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iss246, I don't know if you're aware, but since your account is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself directly (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). You are not required to submit to Articles for Creation unless you want to. Your account was created in 2006 and you have 16 thousand edits. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @User:WikiOriginal-9. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Occupational Health Science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris, regarding Occupational Health Science (journal) I followed the previous debate about the notability and worthiness of the article and profited from that debate. Here is some of what I did. (1) I used many sources that are external to the journal. (2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. (3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP. Tell me what more you want. Perhaps I can add to the entry to make more notable. Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupational Health Science (journal) 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/Occupational Health Science (journal) (2nd nomination) 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.

Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I changed the article in a number of significant ways given the past debate about the article. I did the following:

(1) I used many sources that are external to the journal.

(2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. I sourced the indexes themselves rather than use the journal's website in the spirit of minimizing the use of the journal's website and increasing reliance on external sources.

(3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP.

The journal is more notable given the above. I used the citation style of the American Psychological Association because the article psychology-related.

I shared the above information with administrator CycloneYoris yesterday who was going to delete the article. The administrator then changed his mind about slating the article for deletion after I explained the above. Iss246 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iss246. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal), 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) 05:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb, do you want to take a look at this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still a fail of NJOURNALS, ESCI is not SCI, etc... A merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology would be adequate, after cleanup and depuffing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view @HEADBOMB and @WhatamIdoing, the Wikipedia page for the journal Occupational Health Science should be restored. The impact factor has grown to 3.1. The journal reported 135,000 downloads in 2023. It has a very accomplished editorial board. It is indexed by PsycInfo. Indexing had been a bone of contention before it was indexed by PsycInfo because without such indexing the journal was not sufficiently notable to my critics. But since it has been indexed by the database, my critics have moved on to find other faults with the journal. Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like, and what we don't have for ~95% of journals, is reliable sources talking about journals in their field. I'm imagining something like a news story/column (e.g., in The Chronicle of Higher Education) that says things like "Everyone knows the top journals in our field are... but if you're in this niche, then you really want... and a funny thing happened on the way to founding this one journal..." It's often very difficult for editors to find Wikipedia:Independent sources for academic journals. If every field wrote up what "everyone knows", it would definitely help us, and it would probably help newcomers to the field, too.

In the meantime, I suggest merging as much of that as possible into Society for Occupational Health Psychology#Occupational Health Science, so that readers can find the information, even if it's not on a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, as infuriating as these editors have done to the journal, I took your advice and enhanced the coverage OHS on the SOHP page.

September 25: Annual Election & Members Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Annual Election & Members Meeting, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. The Members' Meeting is similar to other WikiWednesday meetups, except that its primary function is to elect a new Board of Directors. We will elect three board seats, half of the elected seats on the board. After being elected, those elected can potentially appoint more seats. We will also focus on the Wikimedia NYC Strategic Plan, our Financial Report, and Annual and Monthly event teams for the coming year. Election info: To run for election or to vote, you must be a dues-paying member of Wikimedia New York City, having renewed in the past 12 months. Voting will be both online, via emailed ballots from the ElectionBuddy service, and in-person. The poll will be open for the 48 hours between 8pm EDT on September 23 and 8pm EDT on September 25. For additional information, please consult the Election FAQ. Meeting info: Wednesday, September 25 Annual Election & Members Meeting (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. P.S. Also upcoming just before our annual meeting is the Latin music edit-a-thon, Wikicurious: Editing to the Beat (RSVP at Eventbrite), on Saturday September 21!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 26: Wikidata Day in New York City

You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Saturday, October 26, 2024 Wikidata Day in New York City (Eventbrite RSVP is required and also optionally on-wiki). 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Pratt Manhattan (rooms 201 and 214), 144 W 14th Street RSVP off-wiki is required for building entry!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 11 October 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) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

November 22: Free Culture Friday
You are invited to Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday at Prime Produce on Friday, November 22. This event will feature a reception with Wikimedia Foundation staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal salon and game night, utilizing Prime Produce's vast collection of board games. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Friday, November 22, 2024 1:30 pm – 7:00 pm Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St
November 26: Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment
You are also invited to Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment, the third event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series, at Jefferson Market Library on Tuesday, November 26, in collaboration with WikiPortraits and AfroCROWD. All are welcome to attend, especially those interested in photography or contributing to Wikimedia Commons. We will explore the art of capturing the moment through photography and learn the basics of Wikimedia Commons, and (weather-permitting) we are also planning a photo walk, so bring your camera (or use your smartphone)! Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:00 pm – 8:00 pm Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave RSVP on Eventbrite is required for event entry!
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]