The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-05-20. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

My suggestion for a title: "Collect"ing socks among the occult politics breathing in high altitudes -- for some reason the wiser members of the board didn't think that was a good idea . Go Phightins! 23:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's great to see the Arbitration Report back, Harry! I always enjoy reading it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I never enjoy reading it, because every arb case is a sign that something has gone wrong. However I am very glad that it is there to provide a balanced overview of these, sometimes important, cases. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC).
    

• Given that ChaseMe redacted the part of his initial comments that linked his block to a specific individual (and the SPI was deleted at least in part because of the same BLP issue), perhaps the Signpost might consider doing the same. This is a google-searchable page, after all, and it comes across as though the Wikipedia "house organ" is perpetuating an unproven allegation against a living person. Risker (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't. We very deliberately use the words "he believed." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, he "unbelieved" it long enough to remove it from the page before it got deleted. In other words, he had the sense to realise he'd made a BLP violation. Risker (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Which, of course, is why we're using the past tense of the word. You would have us bury our head in the sand and pretend this never happened? (a) we're far from the only ones on the Internet reporting on this. (b) we're not judging whether it was initially a BLP violation. (c) what we have is in no way a BLP violation. It's an entirely neutral account of the events. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
        • You have an odd definition of "neutral". The arbitration report does not normally include images of article subjects. If you'd had an image of ChaseMe in the article (he's open about his identity and there are several images of him uploaded by him or others on Wikimedia projects), I'd believe you were at least trying to be neutral. Risker (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
          • It's clear that we're not going to be able to convince each other of the veracity of our views. ;-) We'll have to agree to disagree. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Risker: I was the Signpost editor who added the image of Shapps. I didn't consult anyone else about this, nor did I have any involvement in writing the Arb Report, so the idea that including the image is some indicator of the bias or non-neutrality of the report is inaccurate. The Arb Report does not typically include images because the content does not generally lend itself to that, not because of any deliberate editorial decision about whether or not to include images. In this case, since Shapps was a public figure whose image was available, I made the decision to include it. I didn't even think to consider whether or not to include an image of Chase Me. It might be something to consider in future coverage, but in this case it wasn't a matter of me deciding between a picture of Shapps or a picture of Chase Me, it was a matter of me checking to see if there was an image of a public figure available. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, it *is* a bias, although I'm certain it's not a conscious one; it's the bias of using an image, any image, without consideration of the potential harm to the individual whose image is used. Would you use an image of the Prime Minister of Israel in relation to any of the Israel-Palestine cases (even though edits about him would likely be involved), or an image of Richard Dawkins in relation to a Darwinism case? There's just no reason to include the current image (or any image) here, either. In fact, the public figure is pretty peripheral to the case itself, except for the real-world impact that it has had on his life, and the use of the image perpetuates that real-world impact by continuing to associate him personally with the behaviour of an administrator, which is what has led to an arbitration case. You'll notice the case is not named for him, it's named neutrally. (It's also not named for the administrator involved, something the Arbitration Committee started doing some years ago where possible to reduce the real-world impact on individual editors.)It is even a non-public case, at least in part to avoid the spread of the BLP issues involved. The fact that very experienced editors and administrators can't even see the BLP implications of continuing to name and shame the public figure is worrisome. I'd like to hope that you can see that the same point could be made without the image, and without even naming the public figure; "a British politician in the midst of an election campaign" would be sufficient here. I'll return to this tomorrow; if it's still there, I'll invoke the special BLP provisions. Risker (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

On reflection I agree with Risker here. The image isn't a good illustration of the purely internal Wikipedia matter being reported on here, for all the reasons that led to the case being accepted in the first place. Andreas JN466 07:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Risker, the Signpost is carefully considering the issues you raise. I can't speak for the whole editorial board, but personally I don't find the attempted analogy with the Israeli prime minister to be relevant: that would be pointed and undue weight, whereas here, the photograph is from the article that is specifically at the core of the ArbCom case. I have no problem with the presence of the image here. Tony (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, Risker, you'd have us stick our heads in the sand when the rest of the world is using the politician's name. I still see no problem here and would resist the use of BLP provisions as you interpret them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, note that the dates for evidence submission and posting of the proposed decision in the SPI block case have once again changed: [1]. Andreas JN466 08:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I know you were going for humor, and I did laugh, but the caption for Kevin Clash's image is in really bad taste. And Elmo doesn't hate public domain; the Sesame Workshop is just ultra-protective of their trademarks, and for good reason. They're a non-profit, it's really easy for outside parties to take advantage of their images and characters, something that the WP community should understand and respect. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the bits. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. You guys are awesome! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this: "The Signpost‍ '​s congratulations go to Krimuk90 on his first featured list! " But List of accolades received by Queen (film) is not my first featured list, but my 12th. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh damn, I misread your FLC nom. Thanks for the note. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No issues at all. You guys are doing a fabulous job. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I voted so as to earn the right to complain about whatever direction the foundation goes if I feel it to be the wrong direction. That having been said, I fail to see the need to vote since nothing changes regardless of whose sitting in a position of power or authority. Nothing has ever changed, and nothing will ever change. Its the sad truth of any election process, but that is my opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We are a relatively small organization. Thus I think change is possible. If we give the community a greater say in tech development (and complete authority over at least some tech resources) I think we have a better chance of avoiding issues were large sums are spent on stuff that is not wanted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. In my opinion, we have passed the point at which change was possible years ago, now all we can do is attempt to tweak the existing system in meaningful ways so as to give lip service to any attempt to implement change. While we may be small, at this point in our existing, it wold take a benevolent dictatorship to overhaul and fix the great issues now know to be facing us here. By no means should that stop you from trying, its just this one somewhat disgruntled editor's personal opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say that I wasn't impressed with the quality of several of the candidates. As someone noted on a mailing list I'm a member of, very few of them have previous experience relevant to being on the board of an organisation like the WMF (a mid-sized and fairly well funded international NGO which manages a bunch of complicated and high-profile websites and an ambitious community engagement program). A couple also seem to want to be elected to argue with the WMF, which seems to be inconsistent with the kinds of responsibilities which go with being a WMF board member or likely to be a productive way of representing the community. I voted for the ones who seemed qualified and hope that they do well, and voted against those who seemed clueless or a bad fit for the role. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: A couple also seem to want to be elected to argue with the WMF, which seems to be inconsistent with the kinds of responsibilities which go with being a WMF board member or likely to be a productive way of representing the community.

If this is what the community wants to see from the Board then this is what ought to happen on the Board. I don't see what's implicitly unproductive about being proactive (would you rather I say combative?) about the situation that the movement is in right now; far from it, I think that these are the most important conversations we could be having right now. Just three of the seats on the board are afforded to the community vote, and what you ask for is provided in the skill-based seats allotted by the Board itself. What is necessary from community-elects is activism on the part of the community. ResMar 04:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Being proactive and vocal is good. Joining the board with an ill-disguised axe to grind against "San Francisco" isn't given that the role involves working with the WMF in a mutually respectful way. I think that the community reps need to have a solid appreciation of organisations like the WMF to be able to provide useful advice on its operations which leads to results. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Still be nice to see some independent voices on the Board. I felt that the current representatives should have stuck up more for the right of individual projects to make decisions by consensus on the matter of paid editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: The board of trustees is a regulatory body with 10 seats. Expert managers are appointed to four seats in the board. A seat is given to our founder, one of our greatest managers. And two seats are given to expert board members from the chapters. The three community trustees represent you in this regulatory body. It is vital that their ideas are your ideas. And that you actually trust your trustee. Do you really want to vote for another manager, when the board already has 7 expert managers. Or do you want your voice to be heard on the board. Someone to present your ideas on the board. A person who stands next to you, will feel what you feel, see what you see, and you only need to turn your head to talk to them. We only appoint 3 people to the board. We need people we can talk to. People to discus your ideas with you. People to discus your ideas with the board. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but if the community reps are clueless about what's involved with running an organisation like the WM Foundation or have a grudge against it they're going to be ineffective. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed we should all cooperate to achieve results. Among the candidates I see experience as members of the arbitration committee or as a steward, people who organised Wikimania and GLAM conventions, people who created Wikidata and the Medical translation usergroup, or a professor in internet social studies, or etc etc. These people will not be clueless. Indeed I think that most people will be equal except for their Wikimedia experience. Those people who know Wikipedia, OTRS, Commons, GLAM, the Education programme, Wiki Loves Monuments, those people will have an advantage. Within the Wikimedia Foundation, the real management is done by the executive director and the staff. The chair of the board does some minor work. The board as a whole has a more general advisory role, it is a regulatory body. However, as could be seen when we got a new executive director. She was dependent on her advisors in everything concerning Wikimedia online. Such a lack of experience is a disadvantage and can cost months on every single new matter. I believe for the board to be effective it needs Wikimedians as well as managers. We have 7 managers. The community should provide the board with 3 Wikimedians. And they should all cooperate to achieve the best results. I believe that every member of the board has the best intentions, and no member will be ineffective if they have good ideas and can explain it face to face with other members. Only when our voice is not given and we do not give our ideas, or give it only via inpersonal letters, will such ideas be easily disregarded. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(Tangent) Nice to see one of my Welcome 19th C. lithograph uploads illustrating the story. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• How many times does this need to be said? Forget about article counts. What matters is article quality. If you can demonstrate the will to train editors and teach them better research and writing skills, you can plan a future of sorts for Wikipedia. Of course, I'm alone crying in the wilderness on this. I'm sure all the money is going to figuring out how to automate article writing and replace editors with AI. Hail Silicon Valley. How's that planned 45% unemployment going to work out for y'all? See you on the barricades... Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And how many times does this need to be said? Not everyone has to work on Wikimedia sites in the same way. I am always seeing people telling other people how they should be spending their time to improve the sites. Bottom line is this: you work on what you find important, and other people will work on what they find important, and together (hopefully) we can improve things. That's the wiki way. That being said: yes, it would be nice if more people could work on fact-checking and adding/improving references. That's hard work, though, so only a minority of editors will want to put in the required effort (especially since [almost] none of us are getting paid to edit — a fact that makes your "money" and "unemployment" remarks seem quite irrelevant). - dcljr (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Dcljr: Your article covers the technical reasons for why article counts on Wikimedia wikis are erroneous. You did a great job covering this topic. But it isn't clear to me why this is an important issue. Why do we need to measure the number of articles? The unstated assumption is that article count milestones indicate a measure of success. But I am far more concerned with the number of articles reviewed for accuracy, reliability, and prose quality, which is, IMO, a far greater metric for success. Erik Zachte touches briefly on "presenting article counts in a meaningful way" that indicates the importance of editors vetting for article quality reflected in one measure of the count. For me, this is the most important aspect of your article, but it's mostly ignored. Regardless of how we define an article, editor retention rates may impact article count milestones at a greater scale. As editor retention rates go down, article counts might decrease. With automation increasing, experts are currently predicting that in the U.S. alone within the next two decades, "47% of the workforce have a high probability of being displaced by technology and another 19% had a medium probability of displacement". In the longer term, jobs that require "critical thinking, innovative thinking and high emotional and social intelligence capabilities" will be safer from automation, but probably not for long.[2] With such a large pool of unemployed people to draw from, Wikipedia is a unique position to welcome these people into its fold and continue to increase article counts and more importantly, article quality. Far from being "irrelevant", this is the most important occurrence in modern history. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Article count (and article length, reference count, article assessment and many others) is a way of measuring a number of things. "Success" is too vague a term. Primarily these metrics are only useful for comparing projects against other projects (ideally of the same family) or against themselves at other points in time. These types of figures, for example, partially motivated the WMF's attempt to increase participation from less developed countries. (Arguably too great a leap was made from the figures to action without developing and testing an explanatory model, but that does not invalidate the usefulness of the figures.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC).
        
    • @Dcljr: That is such a nice way way of putting it. I think you are exactly right. Thanks for doing this work. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I too don't care too much about the number of articles. The number is growing, and so is the quality of the stock of articles with editors adding some info here or there, or just tidying up typos (I make more than my share), improving grammar and style, etc. What we don't measure, probably because we can't, is delight. Good articles are all very well, and a great help to high school and college students faced with an assignment, but what I really hope happens from time-to-time is someone finding something on a topic that matters to them, even if it is not notable to the world at large. Finding out a little about a vessel one of one's ancestors sailed on, or an obscure provincial town they came from, and the like, is where Wikipedia really performs a unique service. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• My viewpoint on this issue is simple: if the MediaWiki software is going to report article counts (and let's face it, that feature is not going away), the counts should be as correct as possible. To the extent that they are not correct, people should understand why, and some thought should be given as to whether the situation can be improved. That's it. What people use the counts for, how they get interpreted, how people feel about reaching milestones, etc., are all less important to me than the accuracy (or lack thereof) in the counts themselves. - dcljr (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

In the second sentence, I read "a decrease of 281,624 articles in the English Wikisource (a 27% drop)", then later in the page, I read "in the English Wikisource, which increased by 281,199 (a 27% drop)". Signpost 2015-04-06 says "a decrease of 281,624 articles in the English Wikisource (a 27% drop)". What's the right figures ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sharp eyes! The first and last statements you have quoted are based on stats collected by a Perl script that I (try to) run manually each day. The "decrease of 281,624 articles" occurred between 02:56:35 UTC on 2015-03-29 and 01:47:31 UTC on 2015-03-30. The second statement is based on stats collected by EmausBot and posted to the various "/Tables" pages at Meta; see m:Article counts revisited/2015-03-29 changes to all recounted wikis for more details. In the case of the English Wikisource, the second quote should say "which decreased by 281,199" (I accidentally switched increase and decrease when I typed it up); this change occurred between 12:00 UTC on 2015-03-27 and 12:00 UTC on 2015-03-31. The differences in numbers are purely due to the different times at which the data were collected. This wouldn't have been an issue if I had saved a copy of the data my Perl script collected on 2015-03-29 and 2015-03-30, but I didn't think to do that before I ran the script too many times to still have access to the older information. (Oops.) - dcljr (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You missed db hickups as a possible reason for article count mismatch. Updating the article count is not done in the same transaction as making the edit, so every now and then, something weird will probably happen and an article will not get counted. Over time, this probably makes a difference. Bawolff (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

People interested in the issue of how to measure Wikimedia projects growth consistently may want to take a look at our work on metrics standardization and some of the principles we proposed to identify robust metrics. As to the issue of quality vs quantity, check out EpochFail's work on m:Research:Measuring_value-added and m:Research:WikiCredit --DarTar (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What it is not taken into account to exclude from the article count, like the redirects, are the thousands of disambiguation pages that by definition they are also not articles. Since they are already treated differently by MediaWiki, it would be easy to do. --geraki ^T_L 07:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That definition seems to be what the English Wikipedia considers an "article" specifically for the purposes of its own guidelines and policies. You say it's "easy" to do, but I'm not sure how quickly pages can be checked in this way; it might be too slow to implement on the English WP, for example. (But IANAD, so I don't know.) - dcljr (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Any reasons why Commons and Wikispecies aren't recounted? I would imagine that Commons is tricky because it's more about files and media than pages. But Wikispecies seems straightforward. I do seem a potential recounting issue in Wikispecies. A lot of taxon authority pages only contain their nationality, area of classification (e.g. botany) and their birth date and death date (or year). These authority pages will have mainspace articles pointing into them but if they don't have a comma, category, image, or interwiki link, these authority pages will be excluded from the count. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Missing link: I am not seeing a link to the source of the "Smuggling Wikipedia" newspiece? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I added a link ([3]) which I think is the one. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh. Ok. " Jimmy Wales Foundation... was formed following...". But formed by whom? And for what purpose? The article fails to mention - is this Jimbo's imitative, or some trolling page (unlikely given that Jimbo has co-written something with its CEO), or what? In fact, the "what" makes for an interesting item for Signpost to investigate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See "Jimmy Wales pledges $500k UAE award to human rights causes" (Daily Dot) and "Jimmy Wales and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Prize Money" (The Wikipedian) for background. Wales has also discussed this on his user talk page. Andreas JN466 11:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See also last month's report in Eurasianet, "Wikipedia Founder Distances Himself from Kazakhstan PR Machine". The 2011 Wikipedian of the Year recently became a deputy governor in Kazakhstan, and heads a Brussels-based think tank – see "Jack Straw Slammed for Taking Job with Kazakhstan". Andreas JN466 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Think of the original hackers and all the people that still identify with the original, non-derogatory meaning of hacking. Think of all the "hackers" that will be attending your hackaton at Wikimania 2015 in order to hack Mediawiki and related Wikimedia free software. You don't want them to feel like criminals, do you? --isacdaavid 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah I saw this episode on Sunday and thought to myself that there was going to be vandalism on the pages. John Oliver is definitely becoming the new Stephen Colbert when it comes to these things. GamerPro64 01:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• "sixth administrator appointed this year": Eighth, actually. But only five of those (the ones not followed by parentheses, if you follow the link) are first-time admins. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I was not aware that WSC's page only counted admins from when they were first promoted. I've altered the IB in question. Thanks, Dank! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• In the section "Accusations do not come off a Wikipedia page easily," one use of the word "stick" is linked to Big stick; this is a disambiguation page and is therefore undesirable. The context seems to be discussing the idea of carrot and stick. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Close—I was going for Big Stick ideology! Thanks for flagging this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• This 'Signpost' is bad journalism. One, Oliver is quoted incorrectly as having made the nonsensical statement, "Because chicken farmers may be able to retaliate against chicken farmers for speaking out". (The first reference should be to "chicken producers".) Two, Oliver is quoted out of context. The closing remarks of his show were preceded by remarks, flagged by Oliver as speculative, on why representative Steve Womack would try to counter Marcy Kaptur's initiative. Oliver offered three possibilities: (1) the HQ of one of the chicken producers is located in Womack's constituency, (2) Womack is on record for having received significant amoungs of campaign sponsoring from chicken producers, or (3) Womack is both sexually attracted to chicken and envious of (hence acting against the interests of) chicken farmers who 'get to spend more time with' the chickens. Oliver closed the three possibilities by saying: 'But I don't know, this is all purely speculative.' In other words, anyone who opposes Kaptur's initiative is more likely than not to act on a conflict of interests, of which (3) is both the least likely and the most offensive shorthand for 'is implicated in a conflict of interests'.92.108.237.41 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I fixed the incorrect quote. I don't see what's wrong in the rest of your post; I think it's pretty obvious that these people aren't actually having sex with chickens, and I've focused the piece more on what effect his words had on Wikipedia. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• MastCell made this comment, not Mastcell -- can someone fix that? It's confusing. ekips39 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed! If you see an obvious typo like that in the future, please feel free to fix it—we actively welcome gnoming edits. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Superb writing, kudos to all involved! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is an editing nightmare for Wikipedia staff, but John Oliver used his comedy to inform and rally the masses for a good cause. So maybe "chicken fucker" isn't accurate for corrupt representatives who favor big business with mafia like tactics over the people they are supposed to represent, but "fucker" certainly applies. Quite frankly, if it is difficult to keep up with the cleanup, I think Wikipedia staff shouldn't stress about it. If these types of edits remain online for awhile, it will simply serve to help inform readers of the quality of the representative holding office. Thank you. 67.159.151.152 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the point of view, that wiki is here to help people to orient in world of information - and I think, when for so many people is important to have mention of something on page about person who should be (and obviously is not) working for public interest, than I don't understand need to censor them. And if this is again some rule, than then should be discussed that rule instead, maybe. That could be way how to not waste time of our volunteers... Personally, I do not like how author totally passed J.Oliver's motivation and intentions (to help real people and to improve real world) and put this (virtual) tool (wikipedia project) on piedestal as most sacred thing.Fraktik (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• This article reeks of partisanship rather than upholding the sanctity of Wikipedia and journalism. John Olliver is slightly misquoted, painted in a poor light, and the article suggests that his statements are untrue without actually providing information to the contrary. I can agree with keeping vulgarity off of Wikipedia pages though. Thanks to everyone who works hard to keep Wikipedia clean, I apologize that the mess of the masses made it's way to your doorstep. 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the beginning of the summer movie season! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick note: editors seeking access to journal articles or other resources should check out The Wikipedia Library, which provides database access for editing purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)