User talk:Liz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Newjerseyliz)
Jump to: navigation, search
Krokusse violett.jpg

'tis the spring season!

This page was last edited or modified by Liz (talk).

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.

Basalisk inspect damageberate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
The Signpost
27 May 2015
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel



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

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hmm never seen this template before, but in my opinion its abusive and a personal attack and its should be discontinued.-- KeithbobTalk 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was funny, Keithbob, and placed it on my Talk Page myself. The "epiphets" are so ludicrous and silly, I can't believe anyone would take them personally. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! -- KeithbobTalk 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015


sent you a couple of emails. (Love your warning when someone wants to open a new section here! i want to copy that!) Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jytdog, I haven't checked that email account for the past few days. I'll look into it later. I forgot who I borrowed the edit notice from (I'm not the original author) but you are free to use it, too! Liz Read! Talk! 15:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Section John Carter and Ret.Prof

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I don't see how I am involved! I've tried to read through this dispute but I don't have a deep knowledge regarding this literature. Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ha, L235! I've got the milk and now I've got the cookies. Thanks for the warm welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #152

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Please take a look at the article Let's Dance 2015. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, BabbaQ, I don't know much about the show but I added some appropriate categories so the article would be seen with other seasons of the series. Hope that helped! Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #153

Mentor and behavior

I appreciate your tone and respect and will listen. I know I new but I seemed to have already gotten in trouble. I honestly am going to cool off for a while and try to listen more. But yes if there is a veteran who wants to adopt or be my pledge mom/dad whatever you guys call it, Im down. Cavalierman (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any conversation about mentoring but it wouldn't be a bad idea! I know there is this new Co-op program but I don't know much about it. If you go to the teahouse, I'm sure they can point you in the right direction, Cavalierman.
My general advice to new editors is to try improving articles that you care about and have an interest in but that you aren't passionate about. Having ones edits reverted is very common on Wikipedia...sometimes I go to the article discussion page to talk it out and sometimes, I just accept the reversion. It usually isn't personal. If a very active editor has the article on their Watchlist, they are going to look at every edit made and scrutinize it. Unless I think they are clearly in error, I will defer to their judgment. Assume good faith, and all.
I know that if I edit topics that I have very strong feelings about, my edits might be influenced by my bias and I might snap at editors who hold different points of view. I've seen otherwise brilliant editors go over-the-top on articles involving nationality, ethnicity, politics or gender because they saw their editing as a moral duty. Trying to "set the record straight" can cloud your judgment and cause you dismiss editors who view the situation differently and have valid concerns of their own.
I hope you come back from your cool down eager to contribute on less divisive articles. We always need more thoughtful editors to work on the 4M+ articles on the English Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. I will talk to the mentor people (I saw your measage to them) and I was thinking I will maybe edit articles about lacrosse and mma stuff. Cavalierman (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Cavalierman, I can't recommend highly enough getting involved in a WikiProject where you will find other editors who share your interests. In this case it would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lacrosse although the MMA project seems much more active than the Lacrosse one. You can find articles that need help that you can work on and find more experienced editors who you can collaborate with. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Chealer from Wikipedia altogether -- Moxy (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


...on the new trainee position. I don't think we edit too often in the same areas, but I have always found your Talk page comments sensible. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, Ssilvers. It's actually the kind of work I like to do. I've been told that I'm too understanding towards probable vandals but I like to give people the benefit of a doubt until I see evidence that someone is being intentionally disruptive. When I changed from a casual editor to a regular one two years, I went to the Teahouse several times, irate about some action I thought was unfair and they were incredibly patient and helpful.
I appreciate the compliment...happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Good catch on my talk page. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Can I remove my complaint from ANI? I would had, but it includes your comment. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Time was running out, you can restore if you disagree. Thank you. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone, I believe that admins prefer editors simply close and hat conversations that are withdrawn rather than delete them from the page. That said, I'm not going to undo your removal. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding that, I have undone and archived,[1] now moving to WP:AN per this discussion. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone, every day I see you bringing cases to ANI or AE. You do so much good work, why so much drama? Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many problems yet to be solved. Surely someone will have to take step and I encourage even if one is not allowed by some editors, though clearly allowed by the standards and norms. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your statement but I'll assume good faith and hope that you are bringing all of these editors to noticeboards because you think it will improve the encyclopedia and not for other reasons. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

DS log revisited

I had checked your message there. You should've checked the page history, Future Perfect at Sunrise never edited that page. He had just logged about 2 entries elsewhere, I moved them today to this year's log. Whatever you would add to this page it is going to appear at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm not really sure that nonadmins should be editing pages regarding sanctions or other admin business, but that's my opinion, I don't know what Future Perfect at Sunrise thinks.
You sure get around to editing a lot of areas of Wikipedia! Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for helping with the log, and sorry for not finding the time to respond earlier. I have to say I find that new log format the Arbs installed rather confusing; no idea why my entries got misplaced in this way. Fut.Perf. 17:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome! Yes indeed, per this edit and its summary, these settings were updated on 20 January 2015. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #154

Editor of the Week

Editor of the week barnstar.svg 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 overlooked housekeeping. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:John Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Liz to be Editor of the Week for her willingness to engage in some of the "housekeeping" chores around here and also being a very welcome expert in an area in which we have a lot of problems, social and religious issues. She has roughly 26,000 edits, with about 44% in article space and a lot of often easy to overlook "grunt" edits particularly regarding the categorization of WikiProjects, which is something that it seems many people who create the WikiProjects themselves seem to overlook doing or just don't think to do. She tries to bring the voice of reason to contentious discussions, and assists others in some matters of conduct and in finding some answers. Editors who work behind the scenes and attempt to reach solutions to difficult problems are among the most valuable we can have.

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}}

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg
Her Motto:
Contribute, let go.
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning April 19, 2015
A Voice of Reason and Positive Answers
Recognized for
Diplomacy. Her willingness to step out of the crowd to impart a positive forwarding message to anyone that will listen.
Notable work(s)
the categorization of WikiProjects, Diplomacy at Talk:Gamergate controversy and many Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! A half dozen additional editors seconded the nomination, including several who suggested Liz would be a strong adminship candidate. For what it's worth, the awarding clerk agrees Face-smile.svg! Go Phightins! 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you John and Go Phightins!! To say I'm surprised is an understatement. Most of my edits, like to categories, are not very visible and go unnoticed. This is quite an honor considering the caliber of editors who have received this award in the past. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You more than earned this. Oh, and I think if you review the nomination page here you might see that, if you so choose, there are at least four people who have already indicated that they would at least support your adminship, and/or maybe nominate you, if you ever want to do that to yourself. ;) John Carter (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
That's very flattering but I'm more of an organizer and wikignome that an article creator. I've seen a few editors who were light on content creation succeed in an RfA but having a few GAs, FAs or DYKs is considered a minimum admin requirement for a lot of editors. But I appreciate the vote of confidence! Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
John and I do not agree on much these days...but we do agree you are of great benefit to Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ret.Prof! I hope you are well. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind wishes. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your contributions and congratulations on the award! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Signpost Coverage of women

Category:Wikipedia Signpost Coverage of women, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm an old man...

...what's "4-20 humor"? BMK (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I know ... I know ... -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Geez, it's about weed? Dollars to donuts I was smoking marijuana before any of you were born.... shit. BMK (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) BMK and Roxy the Viking dog™, it refers to 420 (cannabis culture)...April 20th is a big day on social media for pro-pot users, Happy 420 is already the second highest trending topic on Twitter, right after the Boston Marathon. This subject didn't come up with his edits but the editor uploaded File:Obama 4-20.png which gives it away. Liz Read! Talk! 11:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm older than Barack. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Daesh ANI closure

Could you unclose the thread please? There's still a topic ban discussion ongoing, to deal with what happens to the IP after the block runs out in 2 days time. Bosstopher (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reverse it, Bosstopher. But if you read the discussion above the topic ban proposal, it's clear that the IP editor is likely to receive an indefinite block for trolling. I don't think a topic ban will be respected since the only editing activity of this editor is trolling Islamic articles. Liz Read! Talk! 12:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You're pretty good.

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thanks for your answer. Your answer, combined with the other two answer from other editors, made me completely understand the watchlist. :)
DangerousJXD (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, DangerousJXD! You made my day! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI cmt

Where did he reverted them on their 'own' talk pages? What those cases of AN and AE has to do with this block? AE is not for reporting socks neither AN is, if he did it, then show the proof. Unless the conversation was redirected as such. What "harsh words" did he used? I hope you would rather retract your statements. And please don't talk without the diffs when you are making likely unfounded allegations. Delibzr (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's late here but I'll try to dig out the diffs tomorrow. The edits are spread out across a lot of talk pages and noticeboards. And one day after that, the block will be over. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I would withdraw any of my support if you can prove them, or else I would report to an admin if you didn't came up with the evidence for your claims such as "OZ reverted several admins' edits, sometimes on their own talk pages", "filing more cases at AN, AN/I and AE and seemed to seek out confrontation",(were they all related to SPI?) "he had harsh words for them". If you cannot prove them, then I hope that you would rather retract these statements, we are talking about a block review, not that we are trying to right a bad block by calling out dead issues that were also unblockable. Delibzr (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I said I would locate the diffs tomorrow. I don't keep a sandbox and collect them "just in case". Delibzr, if you are really upset and that is not fast enough for you, go ahead and report me to an admin. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zarephath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Liz, just an FYI the sanctions for RfArs are logged at the RfAr's own case page not WP:EDR so the Warkosign / Gouncbeatduke WP:IBAN is logged here at WP:ARBPIA#2015--Cailil talk 13:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Cailil, I appreciate you letting me know what was going on. I wasn't aware that the I-Ban was logged to an ARBCOM case. I thought it was a discretionary sanction or a simple editing restriction so I wasn't sure why it wasn't logged in at WP:EDR.
My curiosity arose because of an instance this week where 4 years ago, an admin (now retired) gave an editing restriction to an editor on their talk page but it wasn't logged in at EDR. When I asked about it and another admin looked into it, it was judged to be an invalid topic ban or an expired ban (or both, it wasn't clear). But now I know to look and see if a block or ban is associated with an ARBCOM case and I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention! Liz Read! Talk! 14:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah generally if it's from an AE case or as a result of discretionary sanctions (because they are mandated by Arbcom rulings) they'll be on the RfAr page or at WP:DSLOG (most on the latter but not all)--Cailil talk 15:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Have you given any consideration to running for adminship? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mellowed Fillmore, that's flattering to ask. I have thought about it but I don't currently have the content creation record to pass an RfA right now and I'd rather not go down in flames! I know of a couple of admins who worked in very specific, technical areas who passed with little content creation but it's very uncommon. If I see that expectations have changed in future RfAs or I manage to put together some decent articles from scratch, I might reconsider. Thanks for asking though! Liz Read! Talk! 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally don't think you would go down in flames, but I can't blame you for declining. Happy editing, Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
For what little it might be worth, if you wanted to do that to yourself, the various redlinks one the pages at Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles show in at least a lot of cases topics which could have and presumably should have articles that don't exist here yet, and I tend to think that between the various reference books you have available to you by your profession it probably wouldn't be that hard to get at least a few of them up to DYK, GA, and/or FA. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, John, it's probably wiser to try to improve articles that exist in a poor state than try to find significant subjects that have yet to be covered on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for helping with that SPI. Trout71 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Trout71! I'm honored! Liz Read! Talk! 12:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An appropriate award for you!

The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
Patience and calm are indeed virtues, and you got them in abundance! w.carter-Talk 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, W.carter, what a surprise! I vividly remember my first days editing Wikipedia and how confusing and frustrating it was. I think most errors we see are ones of ignorance and unfamiliarity, not malice or trolling. Thank you though and I hope you are having a great weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #155


Liz, I recieved your message. My bad, sorry! I'll fix it on AN. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Now I have to go see what I was talking about! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

re: Welcome Back!

Hey, thanks. I received the email about inactivity and realised that I had forgotten about WP. I'm currently reading the backlog of the signpost to try and catch up. Cheers, James086Talk 23:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, James086, I took a break from July-November 2014 as I kept getting drawn into squabbles and I got tired of the feuding. Now, a lot of those editors have either left or been blocked. Wikibreaks are healthy, I think, as I came back with renewed energy for the project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Tappy fingers

Sorry about the accidental revert. I have a nervous habit of tapping my fingers on the touchpad and moving the mouse pointer around, and occasionally I hit something I shouldn't. In this case, rollback. ―Mandruss  20:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How DARE you rollback my words of wisdom? ;-)
No problem, Mandruss, I appreciate you letting me know what happened. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Constant article deletion on Kent Hovind page

Hi Liz! I have been having some trouble lately on a page about a man named Kent Hovind. The article currently has an introdution paragraph that is lacking a cite to a claim it makes, and has some false statements. I constantly try to improve it but they keep on reverting my edit. (edit is below)

Original Article: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by fellow Young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

My edit: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners that many mainstream theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology are false. He provides scientific evidence, theories, quotes, and biblical scriptures in order to validate the claims made in the Bible as well as his own theories of some of those claims in the Bible.[1] Hovind has also received much criticism from both Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionists such as Author Mi chael Shermer.

I do not see why the editors of this page keep on deleting this post. They have directed me to a Wiki rules page but I did not see what I had done wrong.

Also throughout the article they only criticize Kent Hovind and show criticism from Evolutionist and Creationists that Hovind has debated; these people are clearly going to be against Kent Hovind. THe page also has some rather unreliable cites that should be reviewed such as one coming from a man named Michael Shermer that only gives his opinion of Dr. Hovind.

Please review this article, almost everyone in the talk page is saying that this article needs to be either corrected or deleted to be corrected because it lacks neutrality and true information. Kent Hovind himself even said to do either correct it or take it down.[2][3]

Please help; thank you! Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacob A. Henderson, one reason you might be reverted is because YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Liz The thing is, if they delete my edit, they are making their article worse because the original does not have a cite and does not show a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob A. Henderson (talkcontribs)
Sigh. If you really want to get sucked into this Liz, check the article and my talk page. Jacob is pushing a fringe view. --NeilN talk to me 00:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've had my share of running afoul of the pseudoscience skeptics back in 2013. They are an unmovable force. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Liz For some reason, NeilN keeps on removing my external links from the Kent Hovind page. I am literally just providing links to Kent Hovinds videos and debates and he is deleting my posts giving no explaination why. Please stop him from doing this, he is abusing his power over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob A. Henderson (talkcontribs) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob and Liz. I am also one of the people removing the links to the Kent Hovind page. Kent Hovind has never provided scientific evidence for his claims. The only evidence he has ever produced is biblical references and pseudoscience nonsense. Please consult WP:RS for what is and what is not a reliable source. PS: Youtube is not a reliable source. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob A. Henderson, I gave you a link to the WP:EL guideline in my edit summary. If you had asked me, I would have further pointed you towards WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. The videos are already linked to on Hovind's website. --NeilN talk to me 15:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As I (and others) said, Jacob, YouTube is not considered a reliable source. And it is not in my power to prevent anyone from doing anything on Wikipedia. If you can't resolve this dispute on the article talk page (which should always be your first option), the only recourse you have is to complain on a noticeboard but there is always the potential for that move to backfire as your own conduct will be scrutinized. As for me getting involved in this, I have really sought to keep out of the pseudoscience area as it only brought me grief. My support for embattled editors was viewed as supporting their point-of-view which was not true.
My advice to you is to listen to those who oppose you and work within the framework of Wikipedia rules regarding this subject area. If you go to battle over this matter, it will end badly for you and it will not help improve the articles you are concerned about. Once your POV is labeled fringe, you become a target and it's best to go work on some uncontroversial articles to show you're a dependable contributor. And if you are just completely exasperated and frustrated, come and vent at the Teahouse where at least you will find a sympathetic ear. It's better than lashing out and finding yourself indefinitely blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 16:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Past 18:30. Hovind, Kent E. "The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (1 of 7): The Age of the Earth." YouTube. YouTube, 2 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <>.
  2. ^
  3. ^
BTW, I added a link to Hovind's YouTube channel which was not linked to by his official site. I hope this mollifies Jacob somewhat. --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that NeilN but this still doesn't explain why you are deleting my introduction paragraph. I provide what he actually does, and he does not only provide scripture as you claim, but he provides evidence, quotes, science facts, and scripture in order to validate the bible. (Note: I am talking about all of his videos not just his first) Also at least I do not use a biased statement saying that his theories are not scientific and not even explain why. I provide what he actually does, a quote, and what people think of him like Michael Shermer. Please allow my paragraph to be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob A. Henderson (talkcontribs) 16:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm done talking about your paragraph with you. I and others have repeatedly explained why it's problematic. --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob, for the last time, we have explained this to you on the Kent Hovind talk page, on your page and here. The Hovind Theory is entirely rejected in the scientific community, and its plausibility has been criticized by other Young Earth creationists. Therefore, your edit is rejected. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Need Advice about a recent thread on ANI

Hi, first of all I don't know whether this is the proper place to discuss this, so please feel free to move this or tell me to move this to a more appropriate location. I feel confortable approaching you since I respect your judgement. There is a thread at ANI wp:ANI#User:Drjamesphillips which you closed recently. Since then, I have had some second thoughts about it.

It concluded by someone with checkuser stating that three accounts were socks and all three were blocked. This all looks good so far, but I am concerned because Leminspire states earlier in the thread that he works with Drjamesphillips. Now if they both edit from work, this would give them the same IP, making them look a lot like socks. Furthermore, if for instance, they have the same breaks, or took some Wikipedia time together, or Leminspire was teaching Drjamesphillips, well they might even have spookily similar editing times.

Furthermore, I have interracted briefly on-wiki with both of these accounts and they have very different manners. Leminspire is, well frankly, rude and tends to fly off the handle whereas Drjamesphillips seemed not to be that way. Anyway, I was a little worried by that point so I checked to see if there had been a more formal investigation at SPI. I could not find one. Perhaps it is there and I just can't find it. Maybe you can help me with that.

So basically, my concerns are two-fold. First of all there is the matter that I worry that this association between the three accounts may be a false positive. Secondly, I worry about what looks to me like an unsollicited use of CheckUser. I am very confused on these points and how to proceed and would greatly appreciate advice and guidance.

On another note, there is the comment by you that Drjamesphillips was not acting like a new editor. I have seen comments like this several times as I go around responding to help requests. I really am very confused about this. I seriously considered joining the new pages patrol very early on in my time on Wikipedia, so that never struck me as odd. I feel that there is some unwritten expectation of what a new account should do and I do not know what it is, or how people tell that someone is or is not acting like a new Wikipedian. I feel this situation may be further confused because, if a new Wikipedian begins editing in the physical presence of another Wikipedian who can help them, this may eliminate some of the learning curve.

Anyways, sorry for the long post. It is just that while I agree Wikipedia must be protected from malicious socks etc., I am having serious second thoughts about this particular issue, and the expectations regarding new user behaviour in general. Thank you for any advice or information. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I've often gone to look for SPI reports regarding an account identified as a sock and not found any. It is my understanding that CUs run checks outside of official sockpuppet investigations if there are suspicions of socking. It troubles me that there is no paper trail or record of these checks but I've been told several times that I need to just trust and assume good faith on the part of checkusers. CUs are known for not disclosing much detail about their checks but I'll @Ponyo: to see if they want to add anything to this conversation. If they don't respond, you might go to their talk page and pose your questions there.
As far as new editor behavior, the account was only two days old when it was blocked. Most new editors start by editing articles either of subjects that interest them or they are just reading an article, see a typo and fix it. It typically takes a few weeks or months before they are even aware of areas like administrative noticeboards or processes like the new pages patrol. WP:NPP is especially sensitive because it involves tagging articles for deletion that are frequently articles by new editors and this requires knowledge of the appropriate criteria for speedy deletion and knowledge of expectations for the quality of articles suitable for Wikipedia. This familiarity can be gained in a few weeks but it's not a task for a one or two day old account and the fact they were able to even locate the new pages patrol page is suspicious. You have been here three months and while you don't have a great number of edits, your participation shows a familiarity with Wikipedia that a two day old account from a new editor wouldn't ordinarily have.
Additionally, there were series of edits by Drjamesphillips to The List article which are a bit bewildering where he reverts his own reverts. This raises red flags. Liz Read! Talk! 10:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. I have read through a lot of the documentation at wp:NPP and found no mention that it is not for brand new users. Should there maybe be a mention on there? If so, how would I suggest one. I am also repeating the ping because yours was short an opening curly bracket. @Ponyo:. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 12:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Looks like we did the same detective work. [2] --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, NeilN, I'm a fan of the show so I knew about the Caskett fans but I never saw anyone react so strongly to deny reality. I guess as long as both actors were single, they could imagine that the pair were an actual couple. Liz Read! Talk! 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Since you are a clerk at [3] don't you think that such headings[4] should be neutral? "Response to accusations" and not "Response to egregious accusations", as long as he hasn't backed such claim even with 1 diff. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 08:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm a trainee (I just started clerking a month ago), I'll ask about it on the clerks email list to see if altering the headers is something that clerks can or should do. Liz Read! Talk! 10:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone, I received a mixed response from the arbitration clerks on the email list but all replies included informing the editors who commented about the heading changes which I have done. Liz Read! Talk! 14:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Liz. Just saying, I think that was a bad call. Calling accusations "egregious" seems like reasonable language, based on the accusations that OccultZone was making. If the heading was a personal attack, it'd be different, but there's nothing saying that the headings need to be neutral. WormTT(talk) 14:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are fiddling with headers though, do you want to up the level of User:Nick's additional statement, so it's a sub header? Unless he fancies doing it himself WormTT(talk) 14:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Check WP:TALKNEW, fourth one. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, as I said, I received mixed responses on the correctness of removing this one word and I should have waited to hear from more clerks and arbitrators before acting. I see now that there was no urgency about the situation although the vote is pretty close.
I have been corrected and I have apologized to both Bgwhite and Swarm that I neglected to add that they should feel free to revert my deletion if they so choose. I don't have high hopes that it might sway Swarm's recent decision to withdraw from Wikipedia but it was my error and I do hope he returns. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry yourself too much, its all a learning curve. Swarm is annoyed with the rest of the case more than anything else I'm sure, I think this was just a straw that broke the camel's back. WormTT(talk) 21:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, even though I got the go ahead to delete that word, some folks were quite upset with me. Maybe this is something I need to get used to as a can get in trouble for doing too much or for doing too little. Yes, the case request is lasting longer than I thought it would...probably nerves all around are a little frayed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


As I am certain the following comment is almost certain to be deleted immediately from Rationalobserve's talk, I am recopying here:

I am absolutely certain that this comment will be deleted immediately from this talk page, but I must note, for the record, that RO did post at WT:IPNA where I am a member: here. Which is how I wound up at Irataba. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Original post here Just so what I had to say exists. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, Montanabw. I replied there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

This Month in Education: April 2015

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please look at my apologies here. I will never do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan (talkcontribs) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


I feel like you should run for being an admin if you aren't already, you do a good job here on wiki handling editors while keeping calm =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very flattering to say, Knowledgekid87, I appreciate your kind words. However, most of my editing has been gnomish work or work in categories, not content creation. I'm more of an organizer. It's difficult if not impossible to pass an RfA without some substantial contribution to articles and I don't see that activity in the immediate future. It could happen though, you never know! Again, my thanks and have a good weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay and thanks you too! =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey did you go to Rutgers? (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I've gone to several of their campuses for meetings/conferences but I was never a student there nor did I ever teach there. Are you from Rutgers? Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There were a couple missed dates

usually because the publication of the Signpost clashed with the release of Andrew's data. Serendipodous 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

But, Serendipodous, can you confirm that you didn't publish Traffic Reports regularly until June 2013? I'm just trying to make sure the Signpost archives are complete and I haven't missed any pages. Since very few of the Signpost articles were categorized (none except those featuring different WikiProjects), the only way to know that articles exist are the contents list of each issue or to search for an article by guessing its possible title. There is no judgment here, I just want to make sure I'm not missing any Traffic reports in the first half of 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 12:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a sneak preview on 29 April, and then it became a weekly feature in June. Serendipodous 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Serendipodous, that is exactly what I needed to know! Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #156

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in March 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

All Natural Glamour Solos

Is there a reason why you did this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't feel like the image enhanced the article. I was being bold. Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for defending me on my ANI reporting of a particular individual. At least I'm not the only one who thought it was not acceptable.  — Calvin999 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:Calvin999, the comments were incivil and rude but, unfortunately, brusque behavior is very common online although people are generally more polite on Wikipedia than they are in article comments sections or in the message board world. Part of the bruqueness comes from the fact that these interactions are not face-to-face and also it is due to differing levels of experience editing on the project. Editors who have been here 8 or 10 years have seen it all and are often quite direct and do not believe in pleasantries. If you are interested in more collaborative editing, I recommend finding a WikiProject on a subject that interests you. You are more likely to find like minded people if you have a common interest, there are hundreds of WikiProjects, and it can be very fulfilling to work together on bringing up the quality of an article about something you find interesting. You've been here a while so you might be familiar with them but I just thought I'd mention them because I know they've really helped people find their niche to work in on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been on here myself for over 5 years and made a lot of contributions. I just thought the the way I was spoken to was out of order and not necessary at all.  — Calvin999 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize you had been editing here that long. My apologies! Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol, that's fine! I don't think some of the others did either.  — Calvin999 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015


Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2015

Hi Liz, for the latest update, see m:Talk:WikiConference USA#Columbus Day Weekend possibility. We should have more to share soon!--Pharos (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Pharos! I know it is a lot of work to put these events together but I enjoyed the 2014 event so much, I was hoping that it would be an annual event, or, at least, biannual. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Definitely it will be an annual event, just maybe in fall instead of summer :)--Pharos (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #157

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Word counts

Hi, Liz. Using that word-count tool you shared,[5] I get that Karanacs' word count (not counting the statement that was copied over from the RFAR) is 999, and that my word count (not counting my RFAR statement) is 1948. Roger told me yesterday that I can have 2000 words.[6]

Can we get straight on this? If we're counting the RFAR statements that were moved over, I think both Karanacs (720+999=1719) and I (698+1948=2596) are over our word-count limit. Otherwise, I think we're OK. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lightbreather, I followed the clerks' procedures on evidence length that says to user a word counter and "simply copy and paste the entire statement, excluding the final signature, into the text box there." I checked with the arbitrators on the clerks-l list and they said this was correct.
I didn't include the archived case request statement. I used to determine word count but I'll try again with which is the tool listed for the clerks procedures. I didn't see where Roger said you could have 2,000 but I'll check the evidence talk page. There seems to be a bit of a cushion in this case about strict evidence length limits but they are goals to aim for. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather, I had copied the text using the Edit feature and this gives a different word count from copying and pasting from the regular page. I've adjusted yours accordingly and I'll ask @L235: to double-check my totals. Sorry for the mix-up. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Everything currently checks out. You're both good to go :). By the way, Liz, in the future, when quoting the clerks' procedure or any other policy, or indeed any comment, I find it useful to use the {{tq}} template. It makes it clearly stand out as a quote but not intrusively, and it's always clear where the quote starts and ends. For example, {{tq|test}} yields test. Hope that helped. Thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, L235. I appreciate it. Still learning the ropes. I do usually use {{tq|test}} when I'm quoting a talk page comment but I haven't had to really quote policy pages often. I'll do that in the future. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Raab AfD

Hi LIZ! Thank you for your comment on the AfD. I have a question. The mention of Andreas' comments about 9/11 are very fondly remembered by a very large smalltalk community. Would you vote to keep if that was left in or should that go too? I'm happy to remove the other eulegies. I was trying to show that Andreas was notable to very important people, as indeed he was. He was, for many years, in a group of 4 outstanding developers that did incredible work. Work that continues today and will, in my opinion, make major changes to how we program systems in the future. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Itsmeront (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Itsmeront, if you look at profiles of other academics or computer programmers, they don't have sentimental tributes included in them. I'm not saying Raab wasn't a wonderful person and an inspiring teacher, it's just that this content doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic entry. What I'm trying to say is that your chances of winning over a "Keep" decision is increased if you remove it. If you really find this difficult, you can try to include the text as a footnote or textual note but not in the main body of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz! I appreciate the advice. Thank you for your help. I've removed the Eulogies. Itsmeront (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz! If you have a chance could you review the article again? I have tried to add more reliable third-party sources. Thanks! Itsmeront (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A question regarding some policies.

Ello Liz, been a while, sorry for barging in with a question but you are one of the one that I have good faith in with a question.

As I have been canvassing before as stated and the "forum" policy goes against the talk page where things can be brought up. As such I wonder if it's allowed to use forum lines/threads to bring up a perspective from tertiary sources which are not articles to inject some view that may help articles. and since I got canvas warning due to the action, what options do I have to bring up discussions from outside sources of people that do have an interest in article but are not enabled to write in the talk pages? Such as forums/Threads of where the article is being critized/opiniated?

Thanks for an answer (If there is one.)TheRealVordox (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing is frowned on, TheRealVordox, and I'm not sure what you mean by "forum lines". Are you talking about noticeboards or talk pages? Wikipedia doesn't have forums, like a message board has. Can you be specific about what you are trying to argue for/against and what sources you want to use to present your case? Liz Read! Talk! 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically and bluntly, certain threads in any tertiary forums/blogposts/etc that speak about articles (Even if they have a bias in the thread or article but gives a perspective worth looking in) and these threads critize articles of interest. Is there an option of bringing these in just for simple discussion in talk pages without any hindrances? (Sadly, it's related to GamerGate article for the moment, such as William Usher's Blogs about WikiArticle or KiA or other forums/Blog Articles that seem to have some credentials.) I'm asking you about this since what I've seen have a better grasp of the rules about Wiki (Five Pillars especially) and experience to back it up, and I've yet not seen any way of inputting critique from external common people that speak outside of wiki. TheRealVordox (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


I am user User:AHLM13, who has been just blocked. I saw that you left a comment on my userpage. I wrote something on my talk page, and you can read. I did not attack Admin Anna Frodesiak, it is a sockpuppet of zordanlighter who pretend to be me. I asked to a checkuser if he can prove this. Thanks --Ahlm85 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the checkuser says, Ahlm85, so I don't believe you. But you don't have to convince me, you need to convince an administrator and creating more sock accounts to talk about your block doesn't help your case. Go through the proper channels to get unblocked. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Word count

Would switching from a format of diffs like

  1. DIFF
  2. DIFF
  3. DIFF

to DIFF DIFF DIFF affect my word count? Also, can I just put one signature at the bottom of my evidence to save on words? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove all signatures except the final signature. We use an online word counter and just copy all text except your final signature. You can check the word count yourself at Liz Read! Talk! 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you please re-count it when you have a chance? I think I'm basically done. I don't know what the markup language is, so I don't know if I'm just over or just under. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Markup language is just the wiki language (like user talk, <small>, Special:Contributions/Liz, etc.) that is part of the formatting or links but not part of the content. Liz Read! Talk! 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Faceless Enemy, I have the word count at 439 but you were pretty close to 500 words any way. While it varies from case to case, the arbitrators were advising not to give any notices unless the word count approached 600 words or more. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Since you are fair minded

Have a look here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Please guide us on acceptable use of personal webpages for BLP information and User talk:Leprof 7272#Discussion regarding the proper response to an editor deleting unsourced material in a BLP article. In the first case, the issue is a BLP article being populated with personal, self-published information from the title subject's personal webpage. (I was reverted when I removed them, and subbed in [citation needed].) The second case regards an ANI I was an observer at, not party to, where the individual was blocked for objecting to a reversion, where the reversion reintroduced deleted, unsourced text into the BLP article. This, you might recall, is the opposite of the ANI over the editing at Nazanin Afshin-Jam article, where I was taken to task for leaving the text in, except with [citation needed] added (i.e., fighting to not have the text deleted). First case is more important (active issue). Second is simply an example of ANI's pointing 180 degrees opposite, each time blocking a user... Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging by this conversation on your talk page, several other editors have already been pinged in order to weigh in on your situation. Liz Read! Talk! 09:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #158


Since you reported a problem with AIV's instructions recently, I'd particularly like your opinion about my new idea at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#We need better directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me for my opinion, WhatamIdoing. I offered my first impression but I think you really need to hear from other people, especially those who are relatively new to filing vandalism complaints, to find out what would have been useful to them. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Quick note...

Nicely done. Stlwart111 04:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I usually only close AN/I cases once an action has been taken by an admin, Stalwart111. But the discussion had deteriorated and the main parties seemed to have departed. But Liz Read! Talk! 13:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi Liz, Many thanks for your input at WP:AE here. I had a quick question - by "RfC" did you mean "Request for Closure", as in my previous comment, or did you mean the more usual usage "Request for Comment"? Happy either way, just wanted to be sure. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Co-author for Signpost Op-Ed?

On another note, in line with my post on Gamaliel's Talk page, would you be interested in co-authoring an Op-Ed for the Signpost? On WP:DUCK->WP:SOCK blocks; sort of a "pros & cons" of them (with reference to Editor Retention & Disruptive Editing?). I thought we might be able to provide well-reasoned contrasting opinions. Assuming that the editors think it's a worthwhile topic, of course. Please let me know if you'd be interested, and if you have any questions. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Ryk72, but I'm sure of what my position is or if it would be in opposition to yours. To be honest, I dislike the WP:DUCK rationale for blocking because it just relies on admins' instinct and judgement, not proof of any wrong-doing. And every DUCK block that I've ever seen is indefinite and I've seen them given out after less than a half dozen edits. Either admins have a more acute and finely attuned sense of recognizing sock accounts than I imagine or it is a harsh block that doesn't allow any challenges, most often because it is applied to new accounts and if they aren't socks, they sure haven't a clue on how they are to go about getting unblocked. So, I guess that is my position. It's a powerful tool and if misused, it can have really bad consequences. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Many thanks for the quick response. Our thoughts very much align, and while it would be possible for one of us to "play the Devil's Advocate", on reflection, that might seem disingenuous. The "purpose" of the proposed Op-Ed is to have Admins, and the wider community, consider exactly the issues that you have mentioned. Having been "on the receiving end" of such a block, I can say it is very frustrating to not have a viable way out of the situation. If I put some high-level thoughts (a draft of sorts) together, I might ask if you could review & improve. No implication of a requirement, of course - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of Talk:The Steps of the Sun

I've been editing here since 2007 and standards haven't changed too much, except for BLPs. Notability and minimum sourcing were always key concepts. In fact, I used to do NPP in past years and I think article creators have a somewhat easier time of it now, with exhortations to patrol from the back of the queue and trouts to editors who tag even remotely feasible articles too quickly. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, what I saw was a stalemate between three parties, going back and forth, each exclaiming that the other editor wasn't listening to them. I was trying to offer a third option that could accommodate both the productivity of the article creator as well as the critique that this particular article wasn't up to Wikipedia standards of quality. It looked like a battleground between two sides, one of whom was going to "win" while the other lost (and probably quit editing), and I was offering a way to, hopefully, improve the quality without the article creator feeling insulted, which he clearly feels.
And, personally, given some of the abysmal articles I've seen that were created around 2005-2008, standards have been raised substantially or perhaps it is the new pages patrol that has gotten especially vigilant in quickly deleting articles they see as substandard. I'm sure you have seen at the Teahouse that the most common complaint (by far) is from new editors who have created an article and find it deleted before they can turn it into a stronger article. A few of them stay and try to create a better version but I think most of them just leave and don't return to editing because they find it a waste of their time and a dispiriting experience to have their work summarily deleted. And, no, they know nothing about deletion review, they just know that their work is gone.
I reread your comment about NPP and find your perception that things are easier now to be very interesting and not what I would have expected. It's not the type of work I like to do so you probably have a better feel for it than I. I'm glad that those editors who tend to rank themselves by how many articles they can get deleted are getting some trouts these days. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #159

500/30 Restriction

Hi Liz, regarding this. I think that restriction is only for the GG article and it's talk page, not the whole topic area. — Strongjam (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check in with Zad and revert myself and issue an apology if I made a mistaken. Liz Read! Talk! 10:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Contact-us links

Hey there. I noticed you comment at Talk:Ronn Torossian#Ronn Torossian commentary, and just wanted to check if you are aware that email address does not go to the WMF - it gets through to the volunteer response team, who are likely just to direct him back to the talk page/DRN or similar venues. Just for future reference really! Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know, Mdann52. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

the raw data is delayed

See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Server_rejecting_large_edit_via_browser_and_API

No one seems interested in responding, so if you know anyone who might be able to fix the problem, please let them know. Serendipodous 21:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I knew there had to be a reason. I wish I knew someone in WMF technical area to ask about it, Serendipodous, but I don't. I'll chime in on that thread to keep it active. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible alternative

Perhaps a subpage? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I just went ahead, made the question less specific, and asked it on the Teahouse talk page. I was trying to get your take on a situation but I think it's a question worth larger consideration. But damn that Wikipedia email system! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Different diff, definitely

I'm sure everyone knew what you meant anyway, but in your notifications about AC's decline of the A1candidate/CAM clarification request you seem to have cited the wrong diff -- something to do with the Rick Ross / Scientology request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I used the last diff before the CAM clarification was removed from the page, the last version of the page where the request was on the page. But I probably should have used the next diff where the section was deleted so I'll change that. Thanks for the notice. Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Simpler, yes. But less "fun", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How about the question about the spirit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I missed the question, Gerda. What was it? Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It was on the Callanec talk, you mentioned the spirit of the restriction. If there is any, it is a mystery to me. - My point of view: I am restricted myself and never found the spirit of that restriction. I have seen a "fair cop" report that a friend transgressed his restriction by formatting a infobox which had been malformatted by a newbie (which kept three noticeboards busy for weeks), - now Eric saying that he is not free to speak, - I didn't notice the slightest personal attack, - all this left me at a loss of insight, - help wanted. - I said on Jimbo's page (when Lightbreather announced retirement because of Eric) that I am still around because of Eric. - I confess that in my early days here I once wiki-linked "Bullocks" by another user - who approved ;) - in a mood of desperation. Now, I often just shake my head in disbelief, - beyond the state pictured here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, Gerda, Eric has a few editing restrictions (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for the list). I don't believe any of them were just pulled out of the air and randomly applied to him. They were imposed because there was disruption. Regarding these two edits that brought on the block, here is the pertinent section:

Indefinitely prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

This doesn't seem like an insurmountable restriction. Just don't talk about the GGTF! How hard is it to not talk about something that you are prevented from participating in? If I got a editing restriction and, say, couldn't edit articles about American politics, I would take them off my watchlist and stay away, rather than test the limits of my restriction and whether any edits would be noticed. Eric is a prolific editor and has a lot of different difficult is it to stay away from this subject?
I can appreciate that you are in admiration of Eric, from what I see, he has a lot of friends and supporters. What I don't understand though is how they can't see how this was all avoidable if Eric had respected the editing restrictions. Eric is free to contest whether or not they are valid restrictions or whether it is appropriate now to lift them. But they exist, he knew that they existed and he posted any way, twice. And that's about as much as I want to talk about this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, accepted, but no spirit found, in AE in general I mean, - a place I avoid when I can, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Young cats.jpg

For believing in what you feel is right. Hope you have a good weekend.

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't win a lot of popularity contests! You have a good weekend, too. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #160


13 minutes ago I was notified you left a message for me, but I can't find it?/

I just thanked you for one of your edits, that's all...a way of saying, "Hi!". Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Back at you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I love that "thank" function. It's very simple, and conveys a simple message that can't really be misinterpreted. I particularly like being able to directly thank editors for something they did, particularly if said editor and I clash in our ideas. A good edit is a good edit, no matter who makes it. My 2p. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Roxy, I should thank people more often. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate posts at

WP:ANI#Hardblocking IPs. Not sure how that happened! Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know either. Thanks for alerting me, Doug. Liz Read! Talk! 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2015

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Caitlin Jenner

Nope :-) Sorry. Maybe next week? Serendipodous 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Serendipodous? Is your "week" period already over? Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Andrew's been having problems updating the Top 5000, but you can look at the raw data here: [7] Serendipodous 21:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)