User talk:Adrian J. Hunter

Archives

Aug '06 – Nov '08 Dec '08 – Jan '10 Jan '10 – Aug '10 Aug '10 – Dec '10 Jan '11 – Jul '11 Jul '11 – Jul '12 Aug '12 – Jan '14 Jan '14 – Mar '16

Adrian J. Hunter

Educator

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 12, 2016

An editor who started editing in August 2006, a dedicated WikiGnome who helps wherever he can

Recognized for

Work at the Help Desk

Nomination page

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your courteous help at the Help Desk. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Adrian J. Hunter to be Editor of the Week for his work at the Help Desk, where he's helped hundreds of users. He's been around for a few years (2006), but no one seems to realise how much good work he's done. He always uses the edit summary which displays his courtesy focused nature toward fellow editors.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Worm That Turned and Kevin. What a pleasant surprise!

Now, I shall celebrate my special week by mostly ignoring Wikipedia throughout a frantic flurry of marking! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adrian. I have left a response for you at Talk:Penicillin#Penicillin production today. (You asked that question in 2007, but it might still interest you.) --David Göthberg (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks Davidgothberg. That made my day! I don't remember asking the question, but your response was interesting to me nonetheless. I've read tidbits here and there about optimisation of penicillin production in fungi (which seems to be ongoing [1]), but didn't know algae were also used.

Wikipedia's coverage of industrial biotech seems to be pretty patchy. Algaculture#Other_uses is rudimentary, and we don't seem to discuss the pros and cons of different organisms for fermentation anywhere. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, I know the happy feeling when someone answers one of one's several years old questions here at Wikipedia. I am not sure why it is so funny, but it is. :)

And thanks for the link to algaculture. At least it confirms that algae are still used for some kind of medicine production. (Thus it seems my memory is not wrong.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a question. On Wikipedia, are reality stars considered actors? The way I see it, acting in a reality TV for years requires some acting talent. Just wanting to know for sure. Israell (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, tough question, Israell! Looking around the 'pedia, I see that most people in Category:Reality television participants are not also categorised as actors (unless independently known as conventional actors), and Category:Reality television participants is not a subcategory of Category:Actors. So it seems that, by and large, reality stars aren't considered actors. But I take your point that there may be certain stars who bend the definition of "reality" television, and might become known for their acting skill as demonstrated on reality TV. I think that's something to be considered on a case-by-case basis, ultimately deferring to reliable sources: if well regarded sources describe a particular person as an actor, then we should do the same. But if they're normally referred to as a participant/star/competitor/personality/whatever, then it's not up to us to declare them an actor.

But that's just how I see it, and I rarely edit TV-related articles. You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your input on the interactive gene structure diagrams. I put you in the acknowledgements in the recent WikiJournal article (here)! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Evolution and evolvability – what a nice surprise! I just made some minor tweaks to the article, though I'm not sure whether it was naughty of me to edit the published version. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for bringing the unintended edits to my attention. I do not recall editing the articles 'Pentose phosphate pathway' and 'Chlorophyll b', and I have no idea what has happened or which part has been revised. Please help me revert the articles to their original state. EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts, no worries, I already restored both articles. It was just a matter of clicking "diff" next to both edits when viewing your contributions history to view the edits, then clicking "undo" to restore the articles. I also reverted a bunch of your other edits before realising you weren't actually a vandal, and had to un-revert them. You might have received automatic notifications about that.

It sounds like you left yourself logged in to a computer that someone else used after you, causing their edits to be attributed to your account. If you're sure that's not the case, you might want to change your password as a precaution. Anyway, no harm done.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. Great username![reply]

Thanks again, AJH! EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is new information at me.

Let’s discuss.

Thewolfde (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After loss of the argument at the local level, regarding the first-time-to-appear, self-publication of medical imagery here, followed by imposition of a topic ban in my absence to disallow me to tag plagiarised and other policy- and guideline-violating content—I give up. I wish you well here, and if I manage to make a successful case, top-down, you will certainly here of it. In the mean time, the wasted time devoted to change from the grassroots is at an end. Cheers, bonne chance, perhaps we will cross paths at a meeting in the real world. Le Prof 50.232.9.194 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you've had enough, Le Prof. Wikipedia would be a far more reliable source if everyone shared your dedication to accuracy and rigor. Someone needs to turn what you've got on your userpage about citation mining into a guideline about best editing practices.

If you were to leave a note at WT:MED, I'm sure many would wish you well. I see you've had a rough time lately, but I don't think anyone doubts your sincerity or your commitment to the project.

All the best, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, you have spoken against my template Template:Di. This template is the only template for difflinks that uses the internal wikilinks which make it possible to immediately verify that an internal link is present, as opposed to the templates Diff and Diff2-4. Hence, please don't delete it, but use it. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this applied to a different template. Just ignore the above. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Standard Life logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian J. Hunter. Re your question in the summary for this edit, you're technically right, but I had to view it in its original size on Commons to see the overlap. The thumbnail view in the article shows no overlap for me, using two different browsers and two separate monitors. Are you seeing overlap? In any event, I suspect a crop might do more harm than good because the repeated portions aren't quite identical (for instance, look at the spire of the Chrysler Building). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rivertorch,

That's odd. Here's what I see:

• On my computer, with three separate browswers (Chrome, Firefox, IE) – thumbnail with a horizontal scroll bar. Initially shows part of the image but scrolling reveals the entire image, including overlap.
• On an iPad 2, iPad Pro, or cheap mobile phone in mobile view – thumbnail of the entire image, including overlap.
• On the same mobile devices in desktop view – thumbnail showing only part of the image, but scrollable by touching the image and dragging sideways to see the entire image, including overlap. There is no visual indicator of any kind that the thumbnail is interactive. It just looks like a regular image.

The thumbnails on mobile devices in mobile view are miniscule. Cropping one end should make them a little taller. I see that the two ends aren't identical, but I'm not sure there's any value in keeping the right end, which loses detail to shadow and somehow shrinks that spire. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. On my Macs, in either Firefox or Opera, there's no scroll bar but mousing over changes the cursor into a hand, which suggests that dragging to scroll should be possible...but it isn't! I hadn't checked mobile devices, but yeah, it's the same as you said. I certainly have no objections to cropping, but even if it stays as is, I don't really see the need for the caption to note the overlap. It's not exactly unprecedented in a panorama shot, after all. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a bug in MediaWiki. I'm ambivalent about the caption. Mostly I just wanted to end the cycle of reversions. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me figure out that diff thing. A significant improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc James! Glad it's all sorted. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Adrian J. Hunter for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the study in which you site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200172/ , it states in "conclusions": Evidence is improving in quantity, quality and reporting, but more research is needed, particularly for Shiatsu...

Shiatsu is a vague frame of practice. There are different styles of shiatsu, some much much older and more effective than others. I, myself, practice one of these very old styles. I use this art and treat professional athletes, doctors, and many different clients with different ailments in the Seattle, Washington area. What I do is practiced by less than 20 practitioners in the world and has been passed down through a small group of individuals for over 30 generations. If studies through Shiatsu are based solely on the newer generation of practitioners, then your conclusions will be weak, to say the very least. They incorporate a style that is based more on massage then true Shiatsu practices. These true practices are based on old theories in Traditional Chinese Medicine. When incorporated, Shiatsu helps the body to heal. The human body battles numerous variables in its challenge to heal and keep the body healthy. Shiatsu simply helps that process to be more efficient using techniques that are not, by any means, "magical" or "hard to believe". The right techniques are very easy to understand, and most importantly, noticeable immediately.

True Shiatsu is not efficiently researched. The variables needed to understand what Shiatsu is doing is simple but asks those studying the practice to look at the body differently then most would. This is ultimately why the minimal amount of research specifically on Shiatsu (There were only 9 studies done in your study your site) is unclear and incomplete.

Plain and simple: More research... BETTER research needs to be conducted. The right individuals need to be studied. The same goes for anything not fully understood.

2603:3023:127:F900:F948:4C25:FE02:33F3 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just about every scientific paper says further research is needed. Your edit contains the unsourced implication that shiatsu is beneficial. Please see WP:MEDRS for the kinds of sources needed to support claims of medical efficacy. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adrian; thanks for being such a kind voice throughout. I think it best to leave this here until an independent party closes the RFC. Someone outside of us has to decide what consensus exists at the RFC. I am not sure if it is possible for @Doc James: to inquire at WP:AN if an admin might make an early close? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, and sure, no problem. I guess it's better to do things by the book, given there have been complaints already about process.

It's great to see you back, though I was sorry to hear about the circumstances of your return. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adrian :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dogs for Good logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking at the wrong version of that source... Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James that was fast! No problem at all. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I love the way you both met the immediate need and also explained how to do it. Now a lot more people know that this is possible and can try it out themselves. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WhatamIdoing! That's very kind of you. I'm surprised experienced Wikipedians don't all know about the Wayback Machine, actually. It's such a useful tool. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is too complicated. I don't think that it's possible for everyone to know everything. But now a few more know that answer (or at least will remember that there is an answer, and might think to search the archives to find it), so you did some lasting good there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about http://sumsearch.org/cite/ . Let me know if the Citation Maker needs further revision. Robert Badgett 15:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Your providing the solution helped much. Robert Badgett 01:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than charging me with that. Honestly it's just lazy editing and it's often particularly charged at IPs as second class editors. --2001:8003:7CE4:4F00:391D:5AA3:9B7B:9483 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Barnstar of Royal Fiat
	Thank you for making me smile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks WhatamIdoing for making me laugh with the cutsie barnstar! Seriously though, things would run a lot smoother around here if I were empowered to unilaterally declare new rules whenever the whim struck me. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dopey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed in a few arbcom cases that an editor's "positive" contributions should be taken into consideration. What is interesting to me, and what your comment show, is that there is no way to measure the net loss to the project of driving off editors who would have been valuable contributors. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AugusteBlanqui – absolutely. It's a difficult thing, because I don't think we can meaningfully quantify an editor's positive or negative influences. It works both ways, though. If you or I can convince a person on the fence to stay, or if we can recruit a new editor, and either action results in someone else having as much positive influence as ourselves, then we've doubled the total value we've brought to Wikipedia. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Carbon dioxide equivalent—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2634 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks Gerda Arendt, that's lovely . Sadly real life hasn't left me much opportunity to edit so far this year (only 323 edits!), and it looks like the latter half won't be much different. I'm hoping to make up for it over the long break between Australian academic years. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not get a response to this question. Did you find the answer anywhere? It's not something I would know how to answer, but you could try WP:VPT and maybe they can answer a question like that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vchimpanzee, yes VPT would have been better. I didn’t find an answer, but I only wanted to know because it was relevant to a policy discussion that has long since run its course. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the article Transposable element. I believe it should include some information on the so-called Class III TEs (see: Pierre Capy et al., Dynamics and Evolution of Transposable Elements, 1998).

• E.g. some papers refer to MITEs as Class III: Multigenome analysis implicates miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements (MITEs) in metabolic diversification in eudicots.
• Another example may be Foldback (FB) elements, see e.g.: The transposable elements of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatin: a genomics perspective.
• John Baez (2017) described Class III TEs as a grab-bag consisting of transposons that don't clearly fit into the other two categories, and added: Examples include the "Foldback" elements in fruit flies, the "Tu" elements in sea urchins, and "MITEs", or "miniature inverted repeat transposable elements", which are found mainly in plants and fungi.

If you find some time, could you briefly describe Class III TEs, please? Since you are an expert in the field of genetics and an experienced Wikipedia user, I decided to rely on your knowledge here. Thank you very much. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cirrus cloud for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Hi. If it's not too much of a bother to you, can you please have a look at the aforementioned article's Talk pages - particularly the section therein titled "The 'Charity and activism' section violates the 'Biographies of living persons' policy"? Please have a look and weigh in on the recent changes that I and another editor made on the page and help us resolve the disagreements that we have. Thank you in advance. Abu Wan (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinta Stapleton addition to George Pell, history and current event page is fact and pertinent to the issue, and should be noted for histories keeping to gather perspective and qualified opinion rather to ad-hoc advances of the media to promote with one hand and exclude the other.

If you want a photo of Jacinta Stapleton in her Roman Catholic robe receiving the lords Gift I have that aswell, but I doubt any likeness to a child or the capability to divulge a child actors private life is called for.

Otherwise a quick phone call to St Anthony's parish Melbourne Victoria would alleviate any miscongruences to fact or biases one develops to exclusion of the reason why George Pell is famous in the first place.

No Jacinta... George would not have been cardinal in the first place.

The two go hand in hand and it is the PRIMARY MOTIVE of the media's placement of fame for the now deceased cardinal.

At the end of the day I never expected it too stick. BUT it is recorded for the sake of brevity for now.

,and personally would never have cared to make the point in histories keeping if it wasn't such an immoral and outright biased article the first place. Erlyrisa (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

• discuss the WikiCon Australia 2024 event to be held in Adelaide on 23 November 2024, which involves the setting up of a GLAM collaboration between Wikimedia Australia and the South Australian Museum, and, possibly later, other local GLAM institutions
• discuss means of recruitment/mentoring/training of new editors, and the possibility of holding more regular meetups.

Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]