Archived discussions

Dead link on Uppsala article.Edit

Hi, I reverted it and then I changed the name and URL in the next edit. // Anonymous dude

Thank you! Sorry, I should have checked. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!Edit

Thank you for being so on top of stuff in New York City and updating everything! Please also feel free to add any of your favorite restaurants that you know are operating.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with you on dynamic maps in Manhattan, though. See here. If there are things on the map that need updating, IMO, let's list them and get them updated - unless you can figure out how to reorient a dynamic map to show the grid as a rectangle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I don't think orientation is a problem. Map sites and apps are oriented to true North by default, so that's what most people are used to seeing, despite the different convention on paper/PDF maps (e.g., MTA). I lack the skills to edit static maps, so someone else would have to handle that. Every time a place closes or an editor contributes a new listing. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't you think that most Manhattan maps are oriented to uptown by default? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Yes, when they're on paper. Apps and map sites don't do that, though. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Former College of New RochelleEdit

If people can still walk the grounds, it should still be listed as a "See" listing under its newest name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It's unclear. [1] Looks like it is/will be a retirement and nursing care community. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, if I resume my pre-pandemic work at another nursing home past that campus some time in the next x-number of months, I'll find out whether I can still walk through and either restore the listing with updates or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you change your name?Edit

Did you change your name? I thought you were called User:Nricardo before. I was just asking because I wasn't sure if my ping reached you. 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I did! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted the redirect, supposing the Meta transclusion would work. It didn't, probably as the account doesn't exist by that name any more. Do as you want, but I think redirecting an old userpage is something you should do by yourself if you want to. I could also undelete's version. –LPfi (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouldn't meta automatically move it, unless it gets intervened? Because now there's a bunch of redlinks appearing everywhere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page was redirected on Meta when the user was renamed. The user page over here had been deleted to allow the Meta user page to show, so there was nothing to redirect. If Nelson Ricardo wants the redirect, turning the talk page signatures blue, they can create it themselves, or ask us to do it. Their current user page on Meta does not tell their former user name (perhaps because of a typo), which makes me even more hesitant to creating it without asking. –LPfi (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the redirect, so the red links should be gone now. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some background: When I first created my Wikipedia account many moons ago, there were more limitations on usernames, so I ended up with Nricardo. I think I had typed it as nricardo, but the system decided that the first letter needed to be uppercase. Having an uppercase N but lowercase r has always bothered me. I tried changing it to my real name, but a steward at Meta decided that it was too close to an existing username, so I added some numbers at the end. Brownie points to anyone who can guess what they represent. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Caldas' postcode? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sir! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glen Island ParkEdit

Thanks for adding a listing for it; I've been meaning to do that. But if you really have to be a Westchester County resident to even be allowed to visit, I guess the only way a visitor from elsewhere can check it out is by being a passenger in a county resident's car. Still worth a mention, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave that some thought. I figured that residents from elsewhere in the county might visit New Rochelle or (as you hinted) out-of-town guests visiting friends or family in Westchester. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure how I misread Kashkar Cafe to have Uzbek food. Kashgar is in Xinjiang, although I understand it's a mainly Kazakh city, and there are some Uzbeks in Xinjiang as well, but....Anyway, thanks for your help! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Kashgar is actually a majority-Uyghur city. Within China, it is often regarded as one of the main centres of Uyghur culture (along with Khotan and Turpan), and is a popular domestic tourism destination. But yes, you're right that there is a substantial Kazakh community in Xinjiang, which is mostly concentrated in the extreme north of the region (that's where they have the "Kazakh autonomous prefecture", where Kazakh is an official language), and there's also other ethnic minorities like Uzbeks, Mongols, Xibe, Tatars and what the Chinese government calls Tajiks (which are actually a different ethnic group from the Tajiks of Tajikistan, and speak a different language). The southern half of Xinjiang is still very much an Uyghur-majority region but of course, the Han and some other ethnic groups have a presence too. Speaking of which, there are different dialects of Uyghur too, but since I don't speak the language, I couldn't tell you how different they are. There is a video on YouTube where an Uyghur vlogger talks about the different accents of the Uyghur language between different parts of Xinjiang, but unfortunately it is in Chinese. The dog2 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My is Naledi Mathatho and I need your help how can I create my own page because I am a newcomer so when should I get pictures of other places so can you please help me to create my own page please give me the details below because I really need help and I will appreciate it 🤗 please 🙏🤲 Naledi Mathatho (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean a local userpage? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying from WikipediaEdit

Hi there, thanks for your contributions! They are excellent as always and it's great to watch articles about Portugal improve so much.

However I noticed in this edit that you indicated copying from Wikipedia. Per Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia, at Wikivoyage we prefer to summarize or paraphrase text as opposed to direct copying, for a number of reasons. If you could write that passage in such a way that the wording is original, that would be great. Thanks!

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @SelfieCity. I am in the process of developing the article and plan to paraphrase that section when I can. My "copying"/"borrowing" from Wikipedia was appropriately attributed in the edit summary. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah sure! As long as you will write it in original words later, it’s not an issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nigeria CafeEdit

With regard to your comment that "Wikivoyage talk:Nigeria Expedition would be a good place to hold the conversations with Nigeria contributors", I agree with you in principle. The reason that I suggested the Nigeria Cafe is that the Nigerian contributors have been very reticent about interacting or even responding on talk pages. I guess we are going to see if the cafe idea will overcome that reticence, or not. Ground Zero (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the reason for this redirect?Edit

Hi, Nelson Ricardo 2500! Can you explain to me why you moved the page Pinhão (Alijó) to Alijó? Sanjorgepinho (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Sanjorgepinho. I have been cleaning up Portugal-related articles. I believe that freguesias rarely deserve their own articles. When I encounter them, I usually merge them into their concelho if that article exists or move the page name (thus expanding the article's scope) if the concelho article doesn't exist yet.
By the way, I started Wikivoyage:Portugal Expedition. I invite you to join if you are interested in improving the quality of our Portugal coverage.
You might also have noticed me rearranging the regions. If you're curious about what's going on with this, please see Talk:Portugal#Regions_2021. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation @Nelson Ricardo 2500. I believe you know Portuguese tourist destinations well, to be able to say "I believe that freguesias rarely deserve their own articles". Now I understand why you "destroyed" a tourist destination like Pinhão (Alijó). I believe you will use the same criteria throughout the territory of Portugal. So I propose that you also destroy other tourist destinations such as Quarteira, Sagres, Alvor, Comporta, and Ericeira, which are also civil parishes.Sanjorgepinho (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't destroy anything. I renamed the article. No other Portuguese article is named in the style of "Freguesia (Concelho)". Is there a reason we shouldn't cover the rest of the municipality? I also deleted some transport timetable info., which is difficult to keep updated. We should provide general service info. and a link to the provider's official website.
I already merged Comporta into Alcácer do Sal. Quarteira has city status, so it might be spared. Then again, it might be merged into Loulé. I will have to give some thought about what to do with the others. I'm also giving strong consideration to merging Salema into Vila do Bispo. Porto da Cruz is on my radar, but the article has guide status and was recently featured for a month on our Main Page as Off the Beaten Path, so merging it into Machico will likely meet opposition.
You might wish to bring up such concerns at Wikivoyage:Portugal Expedition, where we can hopefully garner greater participation in the improvement of Portugal articles. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops. I nearly forgot to mention Queluz, but it also has city status. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand. Who decides these criteria, is it you? Where are they written? As for Queluz, I didn't mention it because it's no longer a civil parish.Sanjorgepinho (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The criteria is decided by consensus, but if you're talking about a city, or rural area etc., that is per a couple of criteria's mentioned on the Portugal expedition. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) The criteria are decided by community consensus. I don't think we have anything written specifically for Portugal. One of our guiding principles is Wikivoyage:Plunge forward, which is what I have been doing. Now that you have expressed objections, we need to discuss. My preference that we not have freguesia-level articles is not strong enough that I'm willing to fight for it. (I tend to mostly ignore the 2013 administrative reforms for our travel guide purposes. They made a mess out of Queluz and many other places.)
If you want to move Alijó to Pinhão (Portugal), I'm okay with that. Please note that we use country or autonomous region—not concelho—for disambiguation when needed (though we don't have articles for the Brazilian Pinhão towns).
Now, the one article I most want to get rid of is Salema, which was never a freguesia. It's in Budens, Vila do Bispo. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happened is that you changed it without asking the community first. I don't discuss the rules, I just want them written down so I can comply with them. As for moving "Vila do Pinhão" to "Vila de Alijó", it makes no sense. The civil parish of Alijó coincides with Vila de Alijó, and the civil parish of Pinhão coincides with "Vila do Pinhão". Pinhão is the most important tourist destination in the Douro region and Alijó is not. For me this change only harms the tourist.Sanjorgepinho (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:Plunge forward Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from being a "town" (no administrative status, just an honor), Alijó is the municipality that contains the civil parish of Pinhão. (But you know this, of course. I'm writing it for the edification of other contributors who might be following our discussion.) Again, I have no objection to you moving the article to Pinhão (Portugal). Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nelson Ricardo Quarteira it is a "city" (no administrative status, just an honor) like Pinhão is a "town" (no administrative status, just an honor). I don't intend to move anything, I just want the rules to be the same for the whole territory so I can edit correctly. I just don't think we should “erase” the Portuguese tourist destinations because they coincide with civil parishes.Sanjorgepinho (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sanjorgepinho, please clarify what I "erased". I moved an article from the name of its civil parish to the name of its municipality. The information still there, minus overly specific transport timetables.
rambling sidebar: Although my parents were Portuguese, I was born and live in the U.S. We use common law here (like the UK and most Commonwealth countries) rather than civil law (used in Portugal and much of Europe). We often don't write things down and deal with issues as they arise, using such precedent to guide future decisions. If you have ideas on improving guidance and procedures, I think the best place to discuss is at Wikivoyage talk:Portugal Expedition, which will hopefully have better visibility than my user talk page. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nelson Ricardo, yes, we can continue the conversation at Wikivoyage talk:Portugal Expedition. The only problem is that my english is not good.Sanjorgepinho (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that community consensus (small as this is a small community) was to give Nelson Ricardo opportunity to resolve the gaps in our region structure as he seems to know the region well. We can resolve minor issues later, but for now let’s give Nelson a chance to show us his concept of the region hierarchy. Any personal attacks won’t help us build a travel guide, even if it is a little flawed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have nothing else to say about this, but arguing isn't going to help anyone. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCityI didn't make any personal attacks. I learned on Wikimedia that rules are decided first and then changes are made. The rules are written so that the community understands each of the changes, which was not done in this situation. As there were no approved rules, I just have to question each one of the changes. I accept and will comply with any community-approved rule. I just want any rule to be the same for the entire territory of Portugal.Sanjorgepinho (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With Plunge forward and Be fair we are quite different from Wikipedia and most WMF projects, of which we are the most recent. We have policies, not rules, but to be clear, if you have ideas for the region structure, that's excellent and the more input, the better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sanjorgepinho, Your English is very good, better than my Portuguese, I believe.
Each project in the Wikimedia family has its own policies, rules, guidelines, etc. What applies at one project does not apply at another. Wikivoyage is a smaller community than say Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, or Wikidata. We tend to have less bureaucracy here than at the larger projects. Each language is a separate project, so rules at English Wikivoyage differ from those at Portuguese Wikivoyage, or German, or Japanese... Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was wondering whether you'd like to be an admin. I've seen you do a lot of administrative tasks, and you're very dedicated to this project, both content and assistance wise. I've seen you engage in plenty of policy discussions, and you've been here for nine years, with over 10000 contributions. While you may meet the criteria, I'm asking whether you'd want to be an admin. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SHB2000, thank you for thinking of me. I prefer to contribute as a "dedicated editor" at this time. I don't feel up to taking on the responsibilities of an admin at this point. I'll help out when I can with the powers available to me as a regular user. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could make you a patroller if you like. That would enable you to use the rollback tool to roll back a series of edits if you come across vandalism. That wouldn't require a nomination, just your permission. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I@Ikan Kekek, I'm willing to give that a try. Thanks. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, @SHB2000: Please reverse this user right. Thank you. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Thank you for your time as a patroller though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done. If you ever want to become a patroller again or a template editor, just pop in on my talk page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you!Edit

  The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thank you for your hard work on the article Lisbon Airport. Please keep up the good work! AdamT777 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User interface changesEdit

Swept in from the pub

Anybody else noticing user interface changes? For example, when editing an article, the edit box now uses the "Visual" style without the familiar toolbar and more importantly without the handy-dandy buttons to add listing templates. Also on Portuguese phrasebook and anywhere with audio files, we can't just click to play. It now opens a popup (at least it stays on the same page, but still...). Is it just my settings or are other experiencing this? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead (with great trepidation) and reset preferences to default, which seems to have improved matters, but I don't know which setting(s) caused the issue, and I'd like to restore as many of my preferred settings as possible. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like I needed to check "Use Legacy Vector" under "Skin preferences" under the Appearance tab of Special:Preferences. This stops new features of the Vector skin from being applied while it's still in development. (Leaving this here in case anyone has the same issue.) Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are the changes issues just with specific settings, or is this affecting non-logged in users? If the latter, absence of add listing icons is a FIXNOW issue. –LPfi (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The default editor for non-logged in users is the Visual editor which lacks the icons. They can switch to the Source editor, but only if they know how or that such a thing even exists. You can see the behavior for yourself using an incognito or private browser window. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, upon the first edit, a pop-up does give the option to "Switch to the source editor", but will most anonymous users even know what this means? Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up: After more fiddling with my preferences, I have determined that I do not need to use "Legacy Vector" to play nice with Wikivoyage. The real troublemaker seems to be "New wikitext mode" in the Beta tab. It uses a different edit box toolbar that doesn't include the listing buttons. I have disabled it on WV, but may keep using it on Wikipedia and other projects. This shouldn't make much difference to readers and casual editors, but "power" editors are likely to miss the listing buttons. Another setting that I found important for keeping my sanity is unchecking "Enable Media Viewer". The downside to this feature is that on pages like Portuguese phrasebook with loads of audio files, it opens a pop-up window to play the sound clip. With Media Viewer disabled, it plays immediately without the popup. --Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixing typosEdit

Hi. Thanks for fixing typos, but please read what you're "correcting". This should be obviously wrong to you. Obviously, "connects" is needed. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for catching this. I do try to be careful and often overrule the suggestions. I must have let this one slip by. I'll be more diligent. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Porto AirportEdit

Dear Nelson Ricardo 2500, can you create the article of Porto Airport? thanks-- 22:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would love to, but I'm not sure that it meets the criteria at Wikivoyage:Airport_Expedition#Article_criteria. Although not stated there, the discussion page seems to indicate that an airport would need 20–30 million annual passengers to qualify. Porto's pre-pandemic peak was only 13 million (w:Porto_Airport#Statistics). Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ola 93, as Nelson mentioned above, they need to be quite big enough. Porto Airport is only a single terminal airport and as a general rule, mostly an airport needs at least two terminals. There are some exceptions like Beijing Daxing though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Static mapsEdit

I have added static maps to four "high-level" mainland regions of Portugal: Northern Portugal, Beiras, Tagus Valley, and Alentejo. You may want to check these for accuracy.

The reason I brought this here is that I wondered whether you have plans to split the Algarve region. If so, it would make sense to wait for that region organization to complete before creating a static map. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this, @SelfieCity. Static mapping is a skill set that I lack, so I truly appreciate your contributions. I have no plans to split Algarve (I've given it some thought, but shook it off). As a bottom-level region, it can exceed 9 cities, and the "too many cities" auto-warning category is triggered at 25, which Algarve is unlikely to reach, as all municipalities already have articles. User:Sanjorgepinho has expressed concerns about the existing region structure (which we implemented within the past few months), so changes may be afoot, but not from me. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably not today, but at some point, I will probably make these maps toggleable between static and dynamic, as I did on the country. Static maps will remain the default, switchable at the reader's option. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that sounds good. I can't be sure I'll have the time to redraw these regions if they are re-structured (I'll need to have another look at my .SVG saves) as I didn't realize these regions weren't entirely set in stone. Regardless I can take another look at the Algarve region and possibly create a map for that one as well.
As for Inkscape, the mapmaking tool, I played with it a little a couple years ago and found it difficult, the problem largely being that Wikivoyage:How to draw static maps is out-of-date and in places confusing. (There are only a few here who are able to do it.) This time around I focused more on the end product and paid more attention to file formats and therefore I'm getting the hang of region mapmaking. If you wanted to try it, I would say that there is a bit of a learning curve, but if you have a good plan of how to make a static map, and you follow the rules of the guidelines in spirit, within a few days it's not too hard. For example for Portugal, a map of the municipalities was already present in SVG form. When I downloaded to Inkscape, in essence all I needed to do was click on each municipality and set it to the appropriate color for its region. Then I added some points and text for city and region names and the map was good to go. However, if your experience using offline applications is limited the task can be daunting, and I understand that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caffe cafeEdit

Added the listing to Brooklyn/Southwest Brooklyn, although could you double check the accents? I have an inside feeling that I've mixed it up given I'm not so good with accents ):. Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't my intention to make that a listing, but say lah vee, as the French don't say. I'll make the name conform to the business's preference. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks :). Anyway, it got a listing anyway (with an image). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2021Edit

I'm finally seeing that MediaWiki mass delivery has finally once sent mass mail outside my talk page and the pub ;) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2021Edit

The Signpost: 29 November 2021Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 28 December 2021Edit

The Signpost: 30 January 2022Edit

The Signpost: 27 February 2022Edit

The Signpost: 27 March 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary

The Signpost: 24 April 2022Edit

The Signpost: 29 May 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 26 June 2022Edit

The Signpost: 1 August 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 31 August 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 30 September 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 31 October 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 28 November 2022Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 1 January 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 16 January 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 4 February 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 20 February 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 9 March 2023Edit

The Signpost: 9 March 2023Edit

The Signpost: 20 March 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 20 March 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 3 April 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 26 April 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 26 April 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 26 April 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 8 May 2023Edit

The Signpost: 22 May 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

The Signpost: 5 June 2023Edit

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper