Hello, Zarasophos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to The Economist. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oshwah, thank you for taking the time to answer these questions! If you have any counter-questions directed at me, feedback or other input, feel free to leave it here. And now, let's get into the subject matter. The survey we'll be talking about can be found here (though as active as you are on the site, you probably memorized it all already). The gist is that only a quarter of the interviewed users were satisfied with the handling of reports on AN/I. There are diverse recommendations for reform; for example, the introduction of a report form to better structure reports, a ban on uninvolved editors getting involved in AN/I procedures as well as getting uninvolved moderators to keep discussions short, polite and on point.

As for the questions:

1. Did you participate in the survey?
2. Does the survey answer questions you would have liked answered about AN/I?
3. Do you agree with the results of the survey?
4. Have the results of the survey been discussed between Admins active on AN/I? If yes, what has the reception been like?
5. Do you think the survey will lead to change of the AN/I process?
6. How active are you on AN/I? Have you ever felt "burnt out" of AN/I?
7. What is your perception of AN/I (helpful, chaotic, etc.)?
8. Do you think that there should be a reform of the AN/I process? If yes, what kind of reform?
9. Do you want to state anything else on the survey or on AN/I in general?

That's it for now, though I'll maybe ask some follow-ups later. Again, thank you for your time!

--Zarasophos (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zarasophos - here are the answers to your questions you've been asking about:

1. Yes, I believe I did :-).
2. To an extent. I believe that it was to-the-point and it retrieved good information regarding a basic idea of the main issues and problems users are experiencing with the ANI process.
3. I agree in general, sure. Most of the input and issues that the charts reveal don't surprise me.
4. I may have heard or seen some talk between active administrators, yes, but not over anything specific that I can recall. It's mostly a general agreement that ANI has its flaws and that reforming certain things wouldn't be a bad idea.
5. I hope that it does. If users are generally feeling unsatisfied with how things at ANI are being discussed and handled, and responses to the survey show a significant vote on specific things - we outta take time and look into those things and figure out exactly what is causing the dissatisfaction and what can or should be done to resolve it.
6. I'm typically active on ANI to an extent, yes. I typically try to respond to discussions that involve angry or heated situations or arguments between users in order to help defuse them, discussions that were created by new or novice editors or by editors who may have escalated their concerns too soon (so that I can point them in the correct direction provide them with help), discussions involving vandalism, sock puppetry, or active disruption that requires action, or discussions involving uncivil behavior or personal attacks or those where the focus has clearly stopped being about the content or issue itself but instead on each other.
7. ANI is a place where I typically see both helpful and chaotic discussions, responses, resolutions, and closures. I think that the direction each discussion steers toward in this aspect depends heavily on the issue being reported and the users involved. I've never really been "burnt out" at ANI, and if I ever have been, it was a long time ago and I can't recall such a time.
8. The kind of reform I'd personally think would be an improvement to the ANI noticeboard in general? Start by creating more administrator noticeboards that deal specifically with issues that come up frequently at ANI but should probably have its own place - such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incivility or harassment maybe. We should also be holding all editors (including administrators) more accountable for their messages and interactions with others so that civility and respect is consistently followed (not just at ANI, but in general too). Maybe enact a policy allowing for more immediate and/or stricter action if civility is violated at ANI? ANI ideally should be the place where concerns and issues are expressed by both sides and with evidence presented, and the overall demeanor should be to make it easy for a resolution to be reached by the uninvolved admins or participants that are responding to it.
9. ANI overall is a needed place... after all, incidents and such matters will always need a place for such reports to be filed. That being stated, it does need some changes and improvements - and I think that there are a number of different things that, when combined, contribute to the dissatisfaction expressed in the survey.

There you go! I hope my responses are of some help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you write a bit for your Signpost byline per this guideline? "Suggestion: one to three sentences, that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader". Thanks and looking forward to seeing your column in "print". ☆ Bri (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! and thank you again for your work on this issue!Zarasophos (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cesdeva, Waggers and The Transhumanist! Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions! If you have any counter-questions directed at me, feedback or other input, feel free to leave it here. And now, let's get into the subject matter. I would like to ask you some questions about WikiProject Portals for the WikiProject Report in the next issue of the Signpost. Now, normally this is just a general characterization of the WikiProject, but in this case it's obviously ocnnected to the recent RfC case and the resulting reactivation of the Project. If you want to say anything more about this process, please do! And feel free to answer these as extensively as possible - hard drive space is cheap.

1. Were you a member of the WikiProject before the recent RfC case and the revival of the Project? If yes, what were your reactions? If no, what made you join?
2. How has the revival of the WikiProject been going? Has the initial enthusiasm been sustained?
3. How will the future look for the WikiProject?
4. A more fundamental question - what are portals? What, for you, is their purpose?
5. Has your work on this WikiProject informed your work on others? If yes, how? Any advice for other WikiProjects?
6. Anything else you'd like to add?

That's it for now, though I'll maybe ask some follow-ups later. Again, thank you for your time!

I've written my answers here. Thanks, Cesdeva ^(talk) 18:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions about your questions...

I am confused by your first question. Could you clarify the CfD cases for me? There were no CfD (Categories for discussion) cases pertaining to portals that I am aware of. Deletions of portals are handled under MfD (Miscellany for deletion). However, the entire collection of portals and the portal namespace were proposed for deletion in an RfC dated April 8 at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (RfC = Request for comment). It was the RfC that precipitated the rebooting of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals. Is the RfC what you have been referring to?

What does "informed your work on others" mean?

I look forward to your replies.    — The Transhumanist   07:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Hello @The Transhumanist:, thank you for taking the time for this interview! Yes, I was indeed referring to the RfC case. I've been reading a lot of meta Wikipedia pages in the last few weeks, and I guess the acronyms are just kind of blurring together. As for "informed your work on others", that question refers to whether the experiences you made working on WikiProject Portals has taught you anything which you could use while working on another WikiProject (if you work on any other WikiProjects, of course). Thank you again, and I'm looking forward to your answers! Zarasophos (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll need to write a paragraph of introduction, don't forget. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see my answers at User:Waggers/portal iv. WaggersTALK 15:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to ask you a few questions about WikiProject Portals for the WikiProject Report in the upcoming issue of the Signpost. The questions can be found here. Feel free to leave feedback or further information! Zarasophos (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the May issue will be published in 4 days. If you want your answers to the interview questions to be included, please post them until then! Zarasophos (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the erroneous (CfD) question has not been corrected. There were no CfD cases. It was a single Miscellany for Deletion (MfD) discussion posed as a Request for Comment (RfC). I believe that, for an event as big as this one (over 500 editors were involved), it is important to get the details right. By the way, have you written your introductory paragraph yet? I'd be interested in reading it, so that, if I do answer your questions, I don't inadvertently repeat what you opened the article with. Thank you for this opportunity to communicate with the community. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The error has now been corrected here as well. Feel free to take a look at the draft page of the WikiProject Report, and thank you again for your time! Zarasophos (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if you plan for the Opinion piece you're working on to go out in the June issue of The Signpost? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get it done, but sadly I can't really guarantee anything at the moment... I completed the piece. Could use a quick comment though. Zarasophos (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done and would be willing to send it out as-is. Two things though maybe you should consider amplifying. One: why would Google fear Wikipedia community? Not sure what you're hinting at there. Two: what is the reply to the inevitable answer that via CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia, we have deeded use of work for commercial or non-commercial use equally, and re-users are just taking advantage of that? Are you advocating changing the license going forward to non-commercial? Or competing in the search engine space with a "secret search engine"? Or maybe you would stop at calling them out on un-credited exploitation of content. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zarasophos, not sure if I should mark this op-ed "done" yet or if you are mulling over what I said? Either way is fine, just want to update the status accordingly. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read over it again, and I think I'm fine with it as it currently is. Change things if you want to change them, but from my side the piece is good to go. Zarasophos (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm emailing you about this. It needs some work before it can be included in this month's issue and we're 24 hours to deadline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like your upcoming article for the Signpost. I like your engaging style. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Thank you very much! Let's hope the readers find it engaging, too... Zarasophos (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long time ago. The paper was very young in those days - but already influential. We saw ourselves in those days largely as a German equivalent of Libé which had begun several years earlier. We were fortunate enough to have our offices in the de:Zeitungsviertel (Berlin's 'Fleetstreet'), which was interesting because being close to Checkpoint Charlie, rent and real estate were cheap there, and with all the other newspaper offices so near the wall, it was a powerful demonstration of democracy pointing at the DDR end of Friedrichstrasse. Probably the majority of today's Wikpedians don't even know pre-'Wende' Berlin as adults. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sure as hell don't, though I hope I'll maybe see the taz offices from the inside one day! Were you actually there during the very beginning phase? Zarasophos (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you are intending to contribute to this month's issue could you please check in at the newsroom. We have less than 8 days to deadline. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your ping in the newsroom talk page - unfortunately, I won't be able to contribute to this issue or the next. Sorry for not doing what I signed up for - I'll take myself out of the team table. Zarasophos (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on Russian-themed topics. There are a number of issues. Please start by inspecting this diff. You're welcome to ping me if you have questions or need occasional assistance (preferably before publishing a newly translated article). Tony (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand the problem here - are you referring to your changes of wikilinks and date formats? If so, I'm very sorry for my mistakes. The article isn't a translation, but original writing by me, and I guess my native German bleeds through in formatting a bit more than I would have liked. Are there any other problems I'm missing? Zarasophos (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zarasophos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, National Garment Workers Federation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lopifalko (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion piece currently at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion, you wrote, When later questioned by email for this article, the individual behind both the Mqsobhan and Mqs2020 accounts denied the existence of Dragon Group, or that it had any relation to Dragon Sweater. Can you clarify: did the person actually deny the existence of Dragon Group? And if so, did the person at the same time deny it was related to Dragon Sweater, or did the person make it a conditional claim (such as, "since it doesn't exist, of course it has no relation to Dragon Sweater")? I believe it would be helpful if you could edit the sentence to resolve the apparent contradiction in its current form (even just to point it out, if indeed the response was contradictory, such as "...denied the existence of Dragon Group, while at the same time denied any relationship between Dragon Group and Dragon Sweater"). If you can provide more insight into what was actually said, I can make a copy-editing pass, if you prefer. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the message. What the person behind the accounts said was that Dragon Group was not a company, and that Dragon Sweater, Dragon Sweater and Spinning etc. had publuc shareholders. The problem with that is of course that they have the same three people in Chairman / Managing Director / Director roles and on the Dragon Sweater & Dragon Sweater and Spinning websites are listed as part of Dragon Group. I'll have a look at the sentence to make it clearer. Thanks for your editing! Zarasophos (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note of thanks and congrats on the signpost item; great to have more visibility to these issues. In solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Goldsztajn, I appreciate that. Let's hope it'll be a motivation to improve labour stuff coverage around here. Solidarity! Zarasophos (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Goldsztajn's comment. --JBL (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am working towards a revival. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's user space without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Goldsztajn, I think that is a great idea. Two ideas that I think would be great to have for a renewed WikiProject would be 1. the "New Articles" section on the WikiProject page being automated, showing the full scope of relevant articles being added, if that's possible and 2. a repository of reliable sources (general union dictionaries etc.). As for me, I'd be very happy about that membership card saying that I want to work on "Trade unions in the Global South" and that I need "Speakers of French or Bengali". Thanks! Zarasophos (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zarasophos, thanks for the (further!) support. In terms of the new layout there will be two elements generated by bots which will cover issues related to new articles (and a lot more), you can see them here (they will both appear on the project landing page):

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Recent_changes − in the list, anything with an N next to it indicates a new page.
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Article_alerts − the full list of what the bot covers is here, but for the moment it only shows those related to the Organised Labour project.

In terms of a repository, sounds like a good idea. I'll go ahead and add your card now. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belarusian Association of Journalists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPJ. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about publishing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Opinion again in the "From the archives" column. I hope you agree that it would be an interesting repeat and wonder if you have any other comment.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, great to hear from you again! By all means, go ahead with the repeat. I was actually thinking about that article again as well when I read about the Wikipedia Enterprise thing. I'm really not quite sure what to think about it, but I think the original article still holds up. Unrelatedly, congrats on the billionaire investigation - that article was quite thrilling to read! Zarasophos (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (twice) - The Nygard story needed to be told, but I hope it didn't seem like celebrity reporting.

I'll copy your 2018 piece to "From the archives" right now. It should have a short intro, probably saying that it predates the Enterprise API proposal (so that readers don't get on your case for being out-of-date) Please take a look at the intro tomorrow and suggest (ot just make) any changes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You need to do one for App Drivers & couriers Union www.adcu.org.uk AK80010126 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zarasophos. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 October 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union syndicale des travailleurs de Guinée, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdoulaye Sow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trade unions in the Philippines navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Signpost/Quick Start and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 17 § Wikipedia:Signpost/Quick Start until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. jp×g 00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]