User talk:Peteforsyth

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

I take it that I shouldn't be signing up for things on Meta? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

If you do, it might be a good idea to get that ban lifted first, or else make your presence on that page so clearly valuable that consensus would be easy to achieve. This is actually a pretty good example of the sort of thing I have in mind; I think it's perfectly fine and desirable for somebody in your position to make contributions to this wiki, but I wouldn't be comfortable with you adding your name to certain public-facing lists here without some community consideration. -Pete F 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

If you noticed, the original ban which was for one year and expected to last only 6 months was transformed by a later ArbCom without any new evidence of abuse on Wiki into an indefinite ban with the notion that "probation" or "restrictions" can equal "more ban". With such a radical change, it is obvious that it would never be lifted. I was given an email from one Arbitrator that I can forward you that says that there are 7 Arbitrators that will never want me unbanned no matter what and that the only way to be able to return is to have them removed. It is kinda funny for an individual who never had an RfC filed against them, had every block that year overturned, etc. to be treated that way, especially when the case was filed by myself because I was tired of being harassed. And yes, I was actually harassed - the admin in question sent out all of my personal details to people through email and even outed me publicly on the ArbCom case pages and yet wasn't even desysopped. It is so odd that one of the Arbitrators who wants me gone no matter what claimed that I "outed" a user by pointing out that he previous tried to have me indefinitely banned on a previous name while he was harassing me on my user talk page. I never released any real names or personal info, but alluded to a previous account that the Arbitrators all know was not a real name of his and that he was operating multiple socks and have been operating multiple socks for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

What jumps out to me from looking at that ArbCom decision more closely, is that you've also had some troubles with Commons and a mailing list. Nothing fatal about that of course; but I think if a group were forming, or an outreach-oriented page were being formed, I'd want to have a clear demonstration that other people wanted you participating. Of course, the "Assume Good Faith" concept is always there; hopefully, if people involved with such pages had no direct or recent bad experiences interacting with you, they'd gladly work with you. So I don't think this should be cause for alarm. -Pete F 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

The "trouble" on Commons was by an admin who blocked me for saying that a blatant pedophile should be banned on Commons and then he not only had to undo the block but he was deemed abusive for using a sitting Foundation Board Member's IRC cloak in order to gain permissions on IRC he had no right to have and used it to try and boot me from chat and intimidate me. On the mailing list, I quit because one of the users there was trying to use the list to call people for political action and I said it was inappropriate. Then as some sort of retaliation the one guy said that if I ever came back I would be on moderation. None of those actually mattered to the Arbitrators. You can read their conversation on Wikipedia Review in the ArbCom-l leaks. That was all just added later. On ArbCom-l one Arbitrator said I was worse than an admitted pedophile who used adminship to blatantly harass people (according to the ArbCom-l description), which shows how some of their claims really don't match reality. After all, I am an academic who writes a religion column, is prominent in politics, a leader in multiple civic organizations, etc., and everyone who met me irl at any meet-up preferred my company over most Wiki regulars. If I was really that awful, I wouldn't have had so much support or have Jimbo say I did a really good job as an admin at Wikiversity after my ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

OK. -Pete F 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

It doesn't matter regardless. The Arbitrators are the power structure of en.wiki and have the right to do whatever they want for any reason. For your info, I always seek permission before attending events, posting in certain areas, etc. because of the ban. So, you don't have any opposition from me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

Well, it looks like the essay hit a bit of a nerve. Sorry, that wasn't my intent. Very glad to know the essay seems acceptable to you, though. And I hope things get easier in the various situations described above. -Pete F 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

If you know anything about Wiki culture, it never does. Hey, it isn't as bad as Conservapedia where people get booted almost immediately for questioning things like "Why do you have an article on how liberals are fat?" But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

You said to ping you. Yet another IP. The guy doesn't understand that you can sock by jumping from IP to IP to try and hide your tracks (as can be seen from the linked SPI which has a lot of IP addresses used to get around blocks). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

About the money issue and spending stuff - sorry, I didn't care about the answer to the question to be honest. I was just trying to clarify Mbz's question without it seeming so out there or trollish or whatever. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

Hi Pete, I was just trying to figure how to fill the table, you improved it a lot, but maybe I need a little more help: may I add a row with my opinion? or evryboby fill the same cell with checkmark and then Sue count fot this?? --Xaura 15:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC) (in my dummy_mood)Reply

Hi Xaura, I am trying to figure it out as much as you are :) But I think it's a little different than you describe: each cell can get one checkmark, if anyone thinks that criterion is important. I believe Sue's hope is that, if people disagree about a certain cell, it will lead to a useful discussion on the talk page. It seems like a strange way to stimulate discussion, rather confusing, but potentially very effective! -Pete F 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

And, thanks for the compliment on the table improvement, glad to hear it helped! -Pete F 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

OH! tht's why I cannot copy as I'm used to! If even you cannot figure how to fill the table I'll have to ask the boss herself!--Xaura 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

So someone who has a computer and internet access elsewhere, and can create a log in name that way, can edit on a Hillsborough County Public Library computer, but those who do not have those resources can't. Is that the right way for Wikipedia blocks to be enacted? Doesn't this favor those with resources and disenfranchise those without? This does not seem right to me.

Where is the evidence that there is more vandalizm from Hillsborough County Public Library computers than other large systems. I haven't see the evidence. A year ban for a county public library system with over one million people depending on it? 71.46.49.251 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

I agree that there appears to be an important problem here, and can offer "moral support," but I do not have any special authority, resources, or expertise to solve the problem. I think keeping the general discussion at Wikimedia Forum is the best way to go; I offered up my own talk page merely as a place to facilitate a workaround for a single user, which I am happy to assist with if desired. -Pete F 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

So there is no "quality control" over the blocking policies of en.wikipedia, one of the top internet destinations in the country, if not the world? Why is there so much emphasis on university students, when high school students, more likely to use public library resources, are treated so poorly. Or anyone else that does not have a university IP? Has any university IP been blocked for a year, regardless of the amount of vandalizm? And as I said, there is no evidence that Hillsborough County Library computers are significantly likely to vandalize than any large IP that would never be blocked for a year. And the library computers are only blocked on en.wikipedia. 71.46.49.251 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

You clearly haven't the slightest idea who you're talking to. Continue, if you find it fulfilling in any way. I'm sure it will be entertaining. -Pete F 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Reply

Translation_tools_workshop,_2012#Logistics. Cheers! --Siebrand 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi Pete,

This question is for you as for admin on English wiki. I am blocked there, that's why I will ask my question here. Could you please tell me what do you think about this policy, and what measures should in your opinion be taken towards an admin that violates it time and time again? Thanks.--Mbz1 02:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Mbz, as an abstract question, I think that is a very important policy, and something I try to take to heart as an admin. In practice, it is not hard for me to imagine good faith disagreements about whether an admin is "involved" or not. Since I don't know anything about your case, I don't have much more to say about it -- except that I can see from your user page that you have been a very active contributor in the past, and I certainly hope that something happens to bring this to a resolution everyone is happy with. -Pete F 02:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for response. Maybe you'd be so kind to read this section and tell me, if I got something wrong. Thanks.--Mbz1 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Wow, that is quite an extensive case you have built up there. I really don't have the time to educate myself on such a complex and charged issue. I'm not sure if there is precedent for bringing an RFC here from another project, for behavior that is confined to that project; I understand that you're doing it because you are blocked there, but I'm unsure whether you are likely to find anyone here interested in engaging with it. Like I said before, I hope things work out for the best; but I'm not sure I have any great insights into how to bring that about. Thanks for asking, though. -Pete F 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

I actually did not ask you to read over everything. I asked you to read over one small section, but I understand you'd rather not to get involved. Oh well, thanks for responding anyway.--Mbz1 06:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Sorry to butt in here, but please note that mbz1's en.wiki block is in effect voluntary; as I just posted on the RfC's talk page, mbz1 traded an indef block for a Revision Deletion of an entry in her block log. It is reasonably certain that any admin or Arbcom if contacted via e-mail would lift the block in exchange for reversing the RevDel. Tarc 14:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes my block is self-requested, and yes, I asked to revdelete an edit summary in my block log, but mostly I asked to be blocked because I was bullied, and tarc was the main bully.It never stopped even after the block!

this dirty personal attack by tarc, an attack that was made three months after I asked to be blocked! tarc falsely accused me in posting a racist comments to User talk:Malik Shabazz. tarc wrote it was "typical mbz1 tactic, but she's already indef'ed." I am not sure how low one should fell to make such an attack especially against the editor who cannot even respond. What "typical mbz1 tactic" the liar is talking about. I mean, if it is "typical tactic" are there more examples of the same typical tactic, which is including using an open proxy to post racist comment to an editor talk page? Any differences so far? Here is a typical Mbz1 tactic.

Here's tarc's vote on an innocent essay I wrote (also made after I was blocked):"'Delete - This is not reflective of anything other than the personal opinion of one of the worst battleground-mentality pov-warriors to grace the I-P topic area in recent memory. Repeatedly blocked and now indef'ed, this last finger-in-the-eye to the Wikipedia community should not be left to stand. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)" .Please note that tarc came here to say my block was self requested, but in the examples I provided above it mentioned the block, but said nothing about it being self-requested. Please also note that much less than 1% of my total contributions to the project were I/P related, and less than 10% of my English wikipedia contributions were I/P related.Reply

Now tarc started hounding me here Please see that post and the post at your talk. --14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to have ur comments there [1]. What do u think about the recommendations? Thx --Angel54 5 23:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

to translate parts of an article out of "Der Spiegel" (The mirror), only to introduce u to that stuff - a leading German newspaper http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,778866,00.html:
"In the future Kenzehkhanuly will ask Professors of Universities for help. [Head line missed] That is working in an other context, wikimedia stuff member Frank Schulenburg says. The idea: students dont write an examination but an article. "Why shouldnt they write an article for wikipedia, with scientific exactness", Schulenburg asks. In the name of the wikimedia foundation he asks Universities to help. With success: 32 Universities collaborate in that project, including well-respected like Harvard or Berkeley. Their creditpoints the students get for their participation in Wikipedia. Schulenburg talks about a student, who wrote about the nationaldemocratic party of Egypt. At that time their chairman was Husni Mubarak. "This contribution had a hundred readers, then the Arabic spring came and there were tenthousands." Many of those nonvoluntary columnists would like, not just write an examn , but to work for something with more substance. Now that program shall be executed worldwide."
And I dont do any judgment on that one...right? Replace editor with student, how easy is that one? --Angel54 5 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for that link, helpful to see the Der Spiegel article for context. I don't know about your inquiry regarding the Terms of Use, and I'm not in a position to mediate whatever your dispute with Frank is. But I'm interested in the substance of what you've brought up. Are you implying that there's a problem with the approach taken in the Public Policy Initiative or the Global Education Program? As someone who was involved in the early planning for both, I'd like to understand -- but I am having trouble seeing the connections you're drawing. Could you explain more? -Pete F (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

In short: as I explained in that discussion about Sues Recommendations, I personally got the feeling that the connections between Chapters on the one side and the communities at the other should be better. Many authors dont understand that through their non-paid work it is possible, to grab such huge amounts of money as funding and on the other side nothing flows back in the communities. And in this situation Frank suggests to acquire students to stop the decline of authors. And thats why Im a bit embarrassed about such proposals. If Wikimedia would do a good work in supporting their freelancers such things would not have to be discussed. There are always the same people who think the same things and if it doesnt work, then we change the authors. This is clearly the wrong way: U could read that this program should be followed "worldwide" (and if such an article goes into Kurier then this means, also in Germany). Throw all those people out - they have done their work, lets look for new ones. U know the Shakespeare citation about the blackamoor, who did his duty...--Angel54 5 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

It breathes: Free Culture Alliance SF Bay Area. The vision: informal group, maybe put on a monthly get-together, keep a low-traffic email list, possibly have something substantial on an annual basis? What do you think? I'll talk to Plos folks, if you think this is a good direction, let's get a list going of people to contact.

- Mattsenate (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hello, Pete. I've always thought that it's a shame (or a scandal?) that no info whatsoever on an Wikimania's budget is publicly available. The only thing I've managed to extract (last time for Wikimania 2009) was the amount spent by the WMF on scholarships, and perhaps something an be found in the form 990. Do you know who has this information, where it's stored and made available and to whom, and whether it can be published in some form? It's interesting for the whole community and absolutely necessary for any bidding team. Thanks, Nemo 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I would suggest that a group that doesn't know how much a convention would likely run doesn't have enough experience to run a convention. The previous budgets are absolutely essential, I'm not saying you don't need them because you do, but a group that can host Wikimania should be able to fairly reasonably guesstimate how much it'll all cost, in my opinion. Banaticus (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

Nemo sorry for taking so long to reply. I generally agree that it would be good for this information to be shared publicly. However, there are some other considerations. It seems to me that many (most?) expenses for something like Wikimania would be negotiated -- and having public information about what is being spent, or has been spend in the past, always has the potential to weaken the current team's (or future teams') negotiating position. I would strongly support an effort to establish clear guidelines around what budget information should be published and when, but I also expect there would need to be some clear limits on what is advised.

I'm happy to discuss this in more detail at some point, if you'd like. It would probably be a good idea to bring in some voices from various past Wikimania teams as well. -Pete F (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your reply. Your point is an important one and something which I should have made clear immediately: I don't think everything should be public, but I surely think that something should be (as opposed to completely nothing right now). As I said on Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimania_travel_question, as a public piece of info I think total expenditure can suffice. However, I'd expect all Wikimania teams to be provided with detailed financial reports from past years, for the sake of efficiency and long life learning (so to say); I don't know what's made available to them right now and where, but I hope wikimaniateamwiki is used for knowledge sharing across years, and surely internal-l could be spammed with such information if available anywhere. Finally, when or if some info is available somewhere, it would be useful to add to the Wikimania Handbook a small section "if [your bid wins/<insert condition here>] you'll have access to the following information and sources of help: ...". This is why asked you in the first place, because I know you're interested in improving the handbook (among other things). What do you think? --Nemo 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

So, is there possibility of a Southern California group? Thanks, Banaticus (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

Possibility? Sure! I'm aware of a few SC Wikipedians who might be interested. I suspect WALRUS is the best place to find like-minded folks (along with relevant WikiProjects). Also, you might be interested in the #wikimedia-westcoast channel on Freenode IRC. -Pete F (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hello Peteforsyth. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2012. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 08, 2012. Kind regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

Please login to confirm this edit. Thanks! The helpful one 17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

(editconflict with THO) An IP has signed on your behalf. I can't know if it has been you or not. Either way, please log in to sign. Thanks for your understanding. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

Done -- sorry for the confusion, I think SUL somehow didn't work, and I didn't notice! -Pete F (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi Pete, please see Wikimedia_Forum#Import_request_for_one_strategy_page about MENA Region Catalyst Projects. Cheers, --John Vandenberg (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your interest in Wikimedia Medicine. We hope to create a non profit corporation to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we plan to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This will be done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on a number of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

Of course you know most of this already :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi James, I'm sorry for the delay -- this has been high on my list, but unfortunately, higher on my list has been the Open Education conference (which is today through Thursday), where we're launching w:en:WP:Communicate OER. I'll jump into the Medicine page as soon as I'm able, but it's likely that won't be till Monday. Great project, though! Thanks again, -Pete F (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Reply

This is an example of what I was referring to when I said that it is difficult to tell what the local standards are and if they match us. We basically have to take people's word for what goes on. I honestly don't know how some of the people are involved in that discussion without having background in the language. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

posted here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/Easy_Media_Uploader

FYI, I sort of quoted you here. --Nemo 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35529#p35529 – Some people at Wikipediocracy don't trust you, and a person called "Notvelty" wants me to named three of your clients. Are your clients confidential? How should I handle this situation? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hello Peteforsyth. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2013. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before April 08, 2013. Kind regards. -- MarcoAurelio 14:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Distributed via Global message delivery, 14:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) was formally incorporated in New York as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Our mission is bold like Wikipedia's: Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all medical knowledge." That's what we're doing.

In this newsletter:

• Designing our logos and name: How and why we made them
• Creating Our Board: Who's involved and what they're doing
• Adding 70+ Interested members: Participants from all over the globe
• Furthering ongoing projects: Expanding exciting in many directions at once
• Proposing Wikimania presentations: Sign up for the talks that interest you
• Taking on on social media: Up and running with outreach (plus business cards!)
• Charting pathways for how you can help right now: a great list easy and important areas to contribute

We aim to run The Stethoscope at least once per quarter and no more than once per month. We only send to people who already signed on as WikiProject Med or Wiki Project Medicine Foundation interested members/participants. If you do not want to receive the newsletter, please add your name here.

It's been a pleasure so far, and we have so much more to do. Wishing you happy Spring up North and pleasant Autumn down South.

--Jake and the rest of the Wiki Project Med Foundation Team, Ocaasi (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi Pete,

I just saw the announcement about the open course on how to edit. I was curious about the timing: the six-week course runs from mid-May to the end of June, and VisualEditor is scheduled to deploy the week after that. Are you addressing this massive change in the course? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your interest in our course! No, we haven't covered the VE in any great detail (though we have mentioned it). It's of course my hope that whenever it's ready, it will be deployed in a way that provides an easy transition for all editors. Even if it's not, I believe a solid grounding in MediaWiki syntax is the best tool I can offer my students, and will serve them well in adjusting their habits as needed. If and when the VE becomes a better option, I will of course adjust any future cohorts of the course to cover it more fully. -Pete F (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

As long as your students have some idea that it's happening, then that's probably all that they need for now.

It sounds like the old editor will be always on for everyone, without needing to enable anything. You'll just click "Edit source" rather than "Edit" to reach it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peteforsyth. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2013. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 08, 2013. Kind regards, Barras talk 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Reply

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Peteforsyth! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco. Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hello Peteforsyth. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2014. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before April 08, 2014. Kind regards, Barras talk 09:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

Pete, I don't appreciate completely innocuous edits being labelled disruptive. That's quite an accusation, on no basis at all. Thanks. --Jbmurray (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Today I vented some thoughts which bothered me for a while. --Nemo 14:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Reply

Pete, have I told you lately that you are the best? Just felt like letting you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

Do I detect a tinge of sarcasm, perhaps? :) I have to say..without context, I can't really tell what it's about. -Pete F (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

No sarcasm. I like it when you stick it to the man and defend truth and justice. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hi there, due to an rather stupid accident I couldn ́t answer you question till now. This (block dated 03. April 2014) happens to you, when you mention that a certain user wrote an article about a customer of the advertising agency she ist working for. Of course my edits with the evidence I found were deleted. I guess User:Mogelzahn is on their paylist as well. Weissbier (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

[3] You made it a forum by responding. I expressed support for the greater ramification of the letter, i.e. all such privileges need to be addressed by the community first instead of just this one. I'm sure most people would agree with that sentiment and not want the WMF to mistake that this was solely limited to one feature. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth&oldid=9587263"

Hidden category:

• Pages with broken file links