User talk:Pbritti
 | Pbritti will be away on vacation in Pennsylvania until 1 December and may not respond swiftly to queries. |  |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
- @Dclemens1971: I'll look at it. For what it's worth, you've only ever come across as polite and civil with me. If I see something worth commenting on, I'll drop you a line. I'm on a day trip today, so I'll probably reply this evening. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Further comment on Draft:Former cathedrals of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
[edit]Do you think it worth it to break the three of them out into their own articles? They'd all be quite short, but I'm getting to the point that I think it's feasible. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The more I think about it, the more I think it's the right move - but what article titles? First Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)? Cathedral of Saint Paul (1851–1858)? (current cathedral is Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro: Unless you have a few good sources that call it "the first Cathedral of St. Paul", I lean towards "Cathedral of St. Paul (Minnesota, 1851–1858)". Great work thus far, by the way! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- A further question on dates - with each of them except the third, the dates they were in existence and the years they were the cathedrals did not overlap. Should the years in the article name be the years they existed, or the years they were the cathedral? That's why I lean towards the first option I listed above (there are various sources calling them first, second, third [1] [2]) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro: Oh, in that case, definitely the first option. I think that looks best, with the current cathedral left undisambiguated beyond location. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- When the articles go live, consider using the dates within an alternative Template:DEFAULTSORT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro: Oh, in that case, definitely the first option. I think that looks best, with the current cathedral left undisambiguated beyond location. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- A further question on dates - with each of them except the third, the dates they were in existence and the years they were the cathedrals did not overlap. Should the years in the article name be the years they existed, or the years they were the cathedral? That's why I lean towards the first option I listed above (there are various sources calling them first, second, third [1] [2]) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro: Unless you have a few good sources that call it "the first Cathedral of St. Paul", I lean towards "Cathedral of St. Paul (Minnesota, 1851–1858)". Great work thus far, by the way! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)