Jump to content

User talk:Liz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 557: Line 557:
::: You were both involved in an edit war and could be reported, regardless of the content of the edit. But I think you are well aware of Wikipedia policies. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
::: You were both involved in an edit war and could be reported, regardless of the content of the edit. But I think you are well aware of Wikipedia policies. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Hostile, you are here claiming that I am hostile to Crazyseiko for adding another warning. So, you being unnecessarily hostile when I show I have acted in good faith with Seiko by indicating I was in discussion with him is hostile. So, hostile is admitting why a mistake occurred (the duplicate 3RR warning on Seiko's page). The issue was resolved (I though) base on what was said on the talk page! So, enforcing what he agreed to on the talk page plus removing duplicated information and he just mostly blindly adds back in or making an edit that show I am attempt to include some thing that I think I might have missed from his perspective is edit warring? There isn't an absolute rule re: "regardless of the content of the edit" as there are rules about outright vandalism. Gee, thank for all AGF. If you want AGF then give AGF. [[User:Spshu|Spshu]] ([[User talk:Spshu|talk]]) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Hostile, you are here claiming that I am hostile to Crazyseiko for adding another warning. So, you being unnecessarily hostile when I show I have acted in good faith with Seiko by indicating I was in discussion with him is hostile. So, hostile is admitting why a mistake occurred (the duplicate 3RR warning on Seiko's page). The issue was resolved (I though) base on what was said on the talk page! So, enforcing what he agreed to on the talk page plus removing duplicated information and he just mostly blindly adds back in or making an edit that show I am attempt to include some thing that I think I might have missed from his perspective is edit warring? There isn't an absolute rule re: "regardless of the content of the edit" as there are rules about outright vandalism. Gee, thank for all AGF. If you want AGF then give AGF. [[User:Spshu|Spshu]] ([[User talk:Spshu|talk]]) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

::::: Just to explain, The Paragraph come from the UK Jetix page, User believe that was content fork and was also blanket that page, (no idea why its the same company) So I moved it over to the Jetix page. The user said "rmv. primary source marketing speak" Not actually trying to fix the page. I made the changes, reworded the information, found a tone of refs, and even added in quote from the business manager, To be fair did what he wanted, but he seems to rather dislike any quotes from company's personnel, which is used else where in wikipedia. I know I shouldn't have done it, but I made alot of changes to comply. --[[User:Crazyseiko|Crazyseiko]] ([[User talk:Crazyseiko|talk]]) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:26, 13 May 2014

'tis the spring season!




This page was last edited or modified by Crazyseiko (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 damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
The Signpost
14 August 2024
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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milk (How I Met Your Mother), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Thomas (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) 08:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AR Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #105

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Arbitration request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Rupert Sheldrake) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. In particular, several arbitrators noted that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions, so issues should be handled at WP:AE For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, S Philbrick. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you acting hostile?

Hi Liz,

As you probably know, I am one of those editors who prefers to work in content building rather than spending time "talking". However I do recognize the necessity of communicating as long as it does not become my only contribution. Anyway, the reason I am posting to your talk page today, might be a little unusual. I would like to ask you this blunt question in the hope that you are willing to spend your own valuable time to help me understand. So here goes:

You have always been very friendly to me, but have turned sour recently starting with this User_talk:Ottawahitech#WikiProject X in the Signpost. And today I see you have become hostile. Is it me, or is wikipedia in general getting to you. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk)

I don't think I'm acting hostile. I have good feelings towards you, Ottawahitech. But that doesn't mean I agree with all of your editing decisions and you don't agree with mine. You've reverted a number of my edits and I don't take it personally. We disagree about how to file the Signpost articles in the topical categories but I didn't challenge your reverts even though I stated that I thought filing the articles under "Signpost" was better than under "*". I didn't want to and still don't want to edit war. I let it go. It's a minor dispute and it's not worth fighting over. There is plenty of other things to do.
My recent comment on your talk page was to encourage you to archive the content as it is way too big and it is hard for people to find conversations. That's not hostile, that's a suggestion. Editors give me suggestion on Wikipedia on a regular basis. It's not a put-down or an insult...it's advice on how I could work better on Wikipedia. I listen and if I think the words have merit, I try to put the advice into practice. If it's clear that the other editor and I see things differently, I say, "Thanks, but no thanks." I would hope other editors approach constructive criticism similarly.
I assume if I transgress some Wikipedia policy or make a thoughtless or redundant edit (it happens!), you, or someone else, will point it out to me. Look at my talk page and you can see editors pointing out mistakes I've made. But I would only consider it hostile if there were name-calling and personal attacks and I did neither.
So, no, it isn't you and no, it isn't Wikipedia. It just means that sometimes, editors acting in good faith will disagree. If my comments were too blunt, then I sincerely apologize to you, Ottawahitech. I never meant to slight you or hurt your feelings. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I thought you were acting hostile is that your edit stopped my ability to revert User :Arthur Rubin's deletion in my page. You are probably not aware, but Mr. Rubin has been editing my user space for a while knowing full well I object, even though my understanding is that my user space is mine to do what I want with. I apologize if you were not aware of it, it just seemed that your timing was unusual in its proximity. Peace XOttawahitech (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ottawahitech, I had no idea my edit effected your ability to revert another edit. I've come across Rubin's name elsewhere on Wikipedia but I wasn't aware he was editing your talk page which is totally out-of-line. I had that problem when some former editors contacted me on my talk page and another editor kept coming in and deleting our conversation because it was supposedly a blocked user (although I was never given proof that was the case). So, I believe that editors' should control the content of their talk page, my comment was just that maybe you should just keep one or two months' worth of comments and archive the bulk of what you have. I find it easiest to do so by date so I can find things more easily but I am having problem with my bot set-up and have to manually go in an copy and paste to get comments on the right page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech:; I deleted a duplicate section on your talk page. I realize that you have (to a great extent) control over your talk page, but I never imagined you would object to removing duplication. You also never said you objected to my posting to your talk page. I only made one change in your userspace, in which it appeared you had miscounted the (almost entirely justified) deleted edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: April 2014



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles about possible neologisms from March 2014

When you tag empty categories for deletion, please leave the category text. It makes checking before deletion easier. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing tagging empty categories for months now and I never heard this before, Vegaswikian. Is this both for monthly categories as well as subject categories? Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is easier to leave it in both. The monthly cleanup ones can go as soon as they are empty. For the others, it makes it easier to check if the category was emptied out of process. Though any check is not without issues. Also, G7 works faster when it is a valid request in place of C1. You had at least one of those. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my aim is to stop having these empty categories appear in parent categories. Would it be alright if I removed their assigned categories but left any text on the page? I don't mean to be splitting hairs, I just thought a blank page looked cleaner than one full of information that was no longer relevant because the category was empty. But I'll leave the text on the page and I'll try to remember to use G7 if I created the category instead of C1. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American women philosophers

Category:American women philosophers, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised, Obi-Wan Kenobi? Just a continuing crusade against gender-based categories. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm yeah, like yours [1],[dead link] or your crusade against jews being from Middle East, or your crusade to vote keep for all gendered cats no matter how much they violate our guidelines. Be fair Liz -- cats are created by individuals but they are kept or deleted by consensus, I'm just putting them forward to the community, and the community has agreed with me 95% of the time. There are also thousands of gendered cats that I will never touch and that I have actually expanded and added hundreds of women or men to. So please lay off the rhetoric and use of the word crusade, it's uncalled for and misplaced and wrong . I go after cats that violate guidelines, whether gendered, LGBT, race-based, not defining, subjective, etc. I have a special focus on non -diffusing cats since those make it sometimes too easy to ghettoize. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that , not surprisingly, this category has already ghettoized 35 women philosophers. Remember what happened when one woman novelist got ghettoized ?-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one instance where the abbreviation of categories as cats leads more to humour than clarity. And without fully immersing myself, I would say that longstanding marginalization of either men or women, or between races, in any area (intentional or as a result of historic biases) make it reasonable to consider a gender or race differentiated article. My profession, historically devoid of women as it long was, now has, through its principle American society, special meetings, events, and awards that recognize the achievements of women chemists. If the principle global society in a field does so, should not a popular encyclopedia? In the same way, the historic difficulties of American-Americans breaking into medicine and biomedical research have led to a reasonable focusing on their contributions in their most challenging periods of the history. Do these examples begin to offer something of a line that might be followed? Perhaps "historic evidence of marginalization in a field or area where interest was present, but stymied, and where number disparities are sufficient enough to warrant consideration"? ("Lor' hep us" if that does not preclude embalmers.) That said, Obi, one might suggest you consider the detachment of your namesake, unless you wish to be seen as one who is characteristically an ironic manifestation of the name they have taken. Granted, Liz first used the word, but to get to the crux: where is the wisdom in extending its use, and to the Middle East? Alongside the inserted spaces around your punctuation here, your overall language is "loaded" enough that one might wonder—also given the sublime object of your ire—if you yourself are are. A little too much Dark Nest Membrosia or Mandalorian Black Ale [2]? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prof. This was probably written on my smartphone, which may explain the odd spaces in punctuation... I was using the word "crusade" to point out the problems with its use as a critique of me, and indicating areas that Liz has been known to "crusade" over a long term in pushing a particular point (and the irony, since the now deleted edit was Liz nominating a "gendered" category for deletion!). The middle east point is actually something I agree with Liz on, and I've been part of that "crusade" - it's a matter of a categorization dispute that is ongoing even today with about 10 reverts in the past 24 hours (see [3]), so still a contentious area, I'd stay away if you value your time. I wish I knew more about Star Wars substances, I haven't read the books just the films... Anyway, re: your broader point, that is ONE part of the criteria for a gendered or ethnic category at WP:EGRS - any given intersection must be notable - but it has little to do with whether group X had difficulty getting into job Y, it has to do with whether reliable sources discuss the intersection of X and Y as a notable subgrouping. However, there are other criteria for such categories, including the "Final rung rule", which attempts to avoid ghettoization by not dividing a tree at the leaf level into gendered categories. As such, Category:American women philosophers violates this rule, while Category:Women philosophers does not. I note that we have Category:Women chemists, but the current category structure would not permit Category:Chinese women chemists since this category would tend to ghettoize. Liz still hasn't answered my question below, but she regularly opposes any "female" category I nominate for deletion. I'm just trying to figure out if she has a line in the sand, and if so where it is - because it seems different than current consensus would indicate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the calm. Perhaps it was sapir tea? [4] (But then I only know of such imbibing what I learn of an instant, trying to bring a bit of humour. Or humous, if you were quick to get here.) On subject, let's see what Liz—who you must know I esteem greatly at this place, for her evenhandedness and general fair-mindedness (see Barnstar of earlier)—might say, given some reasonable time. For each of us, different buttons can get pushed, and it may be that you each have found and push the other's. If you two can sort this, it may be of lasting good for this place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agreed... Liz is good people, and she and I agree on most things, I think at least. Always happy to find a happy solution...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liz, sometimes when I nominate a gender- or ethnicity-based cat for deletion, you oppose and accuse me of trying to dismantle the whole "women" tree. Let's turn the tables and allow me to understand clearly your POV. Do you believe that for every neutral category of people X, we should create a category of "Women X"? If not, in what cases should we NOT create "Women X", and in what cases *should* we? For example, we have a category Category:Embalmers, with 5 people in it. Should we create a category Category:Women embalmers below it? If so, why? If not, why not? There are 195 subcats of Category:People by occupation, but only 104 "Women by occupation" and only 22 "Men by occupation". Should we have 195 top-level cats for women and 195 top-level cats for men? I'm trying to figure out where your line in the sand is, since it's obviously different than mine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #106

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #107

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Escrituras

This group of people (read noticeboard) are sabotaging articles for to justify a hypothesis that they believe is true. --Pownerus (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea what you are talking about with these articles. I was just responding to a complaint on the AN/I board and encouraged you to talk out your differences with other editors on the article talk pages. You should try to work things out rather than get into an edit war. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2014

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 13:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Jerry Pepsi

Regarding your revert of my deletion of one of Jerry Pepsi's talk page comments, I said at the time that my deletions were based on the fact that, as the sock of a banned editor, he was not allowed to edit Wikipedia anywhere at any time, but that if any editor in good standing thinks that one of my deletions should be restored, I had absolutely no problem with that. So if you see any others, please don't hesitate.Best, BMK (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is not what I expected your talk page comment to say, BMK. I'm not looking over his contribution list, just watchlisting a few pages where he has been active. In general, it seems like JP had a tendency to remove material he thought was improperly sourced and he seemed to have the reference books at hand so I thought his questioning of the addition might have merits. But I don't expect to do so again.
Editors' attitude toward sock puppets does interest me. It's not just your reaction to JP, it's every time a sock account is uncovered, the admin response is swift and unforgiving. The only time I've seen a harsher response is recently when an accused editor introduced copyright violations and invalid sources. I know it is all a matter of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia so I understand the blocks. There is just so much more emotion involved in these cases than in a block for edit warring or having a COI. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe long-term editors like you and I and most admins have so much invested in Wikipedia, and those problems (socking and copyvios) seem more destructive to the viability of the institution. I remember reading somewhere that a country which can't control its borders is not really much of a country at all (shades of the current Ukraine crisis!), and socking is a direct attack on Wikipedia's borders.

My own reaction to Jerry Pepsi and the rest of Otto4711's socks goes back to some really nasty disputes between us in the earliest days of his socking. It's so enervating to try to deal with someone who's both unreasonable and nasty and won't even think about compromising. (I think I may have taken a block for edit warring with him with an earlier ID, that may have added to my hearty dislike for the person.) Anyway, I've sort of made it a pet project to keep track of his antics, and to get him blocked whenever he's recognized. BMK (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense, BMK, I didn't know you had a previous run-in. My attitude about socks is that it is so incredibly simple to create an account, I think a fair share of regular WP editors have alternative accounts that they don't declare. I'm not saying that the accounts are used deceptively (heck, these accounts may not even have been used at all and have 0 edits), but I'm betting that they exist.
I believe this after encountering several cases where there were sock-fighting editors, who had been around for years, who, it turns out, had their own sock accounts and they later found themselves blocked. So, if even a few anti-sock editors also sock, there is more of it going around than people want to acknowledge. Like I said, I think most of it hasn't swayed AfDs, RfAs ARBCOM elections and the like because it is low level and not destructive. But I'm sure more of it exists than anyone realizes. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with you, and if I was King of Wikipedia, and if it was technically possible, I'd require the entire community to declare 2 or 3 working acounts that are visibly and obviously linked to each other, then I'd run check user on everyone and nuke the rest of the accounts. From then on, that's it, amnesty is over, you edit with another account or you edit deceptively while logged out (avoiding scrutiny) and *bam* you're indef blocked, no questions asked, no long drawn-out discussion. If it were that clear-cut than the good editors who keep an account on the side "just in case" (they tell themselves) won't be tempted to do it, and we would know who we're talking to when we're talking to them (as much as we can "know" while using pseudonyms). To me the whole "no fishing expeditions" requirement of CU is ludicrous, I'd rather control the borders so that we can all get on with editing, and require that a CU be run at anyone's suggestion at any time. (And I say all this despite the fact that I have two previous accounts, and have registered a bunch of names similar to my username to keep them out of the hands of people who might like to use "Beneath My Ken" to get at me - but each of them is clearly labelled as what they are.) BMK (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we would have to multiply the number of checkusers by 100 times! Another thing I've learned is that just about every single administrative area on WP is understaffed and could use more eyes and hands. So, we'll just have to go with rooting out the most egregious offenders. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but such are y daydreams! BMK (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #108

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Do not remove my comments, as you have done here [5]. If you do it again, action will be taken.

Regards,

Evildoer187 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was an edit conflict and had nothing to do with you, it could have happened with any editor who was also editing AN/I at the same time. My apologies, I didn't realize my edit removed your comment, it was certainly not intentional. Edit conflicts happen on AN/I fairly often because it is a heavily edited page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicolas Wright, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IFC, Superstorm and The Wild Hunt (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) 08:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and an FYI

Thanks for your tag on Qamaruddin Chishti Sabiri. Just so you know that is one of a number of articles that have been the object of some very aggressive, and arguably disruptive, agenda driven editing by Summichum. He recently gutted a bunch of articles he didn't like down to stubs, and then tagged them for CSD. I don't know that background to it, but there appears to be some kind of edit war going on between proponents of two different Islamic sects playing out on in a bunch of articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ad Orientem, I saw the complaints about Summichum on WP:EWN and decided to look at his edits where he removed 1500 or more characters from articles (it was often between 2500-4000). Luckily, there are other editors looking into his edits as well so many of the larger deletions have been reverted. But thanks for the thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I appreciate you coming to my defense. However, I have decided to leave Wikipedia voluntarily. The way that thread is going, it looks like that may be the ultimate outcome anyway. I know that we have disagreed in the past, but I bear no ill will. The only thing I can hope for now is that the articles sort themselves out.

Evildoer187 (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing

Of course you can ignore this comment as a Who Asked You? — but I find the bouncing Wikilogo distracting & annoying. (But then, the other day someone called me a Grumpy Old Man.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AE Notification

There is an AE request that may concern you. Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MAW

Actually, if you bothered to do some homework, you'd see that WP:MAW was created a few years ago. Adding the acronym is no problem. So time to move on and do something else I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind advice. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could I ask for your assistance?

Hello Liz! You recently made a comment on my talk page and I've looked into your history here. You seem like a breath of fresh air. I hope this is not an inappropriate question to ask, but Deepak Chopra's article could use a rational mediating voice and was wondering if this could attract your attention. An admin (freerangefrog) has already commented on my COIN and specifically requested non involved or neutral editors could come and help out due to the skeptic activity on the page. One user whom you know who offered to help is being harassed. Another user you know has offered to help but also wants to back off because of the harassment. I represent an archive and am a researcher - I have ethics too and my job is to work within Wikipedia policy specifically, I'm not a PR rep or a marketing rep. I've even asked Atama, an admin I respect very much, if I could offer WP REWARD in the form of a donation to Wikipedia for editors who volunteer to come in and help. It's just been difficult to have a rational discussion - I think if some rational voices participate it will become more productive. Any help, advice, participation very meaningful over here. Sorry if this is out of line too. I think I have the ok to reach out for help, but every step I take according to Wikipedia BLP I also get called out for by some editors and everything I do in some eyes is wrong :( SAS81 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAS81, I think there is still a reward page here somewhere but I don't think it would help your case. I think I understand your position, I have both worked on grant projects and I worked at an archive for close to two years, both of these projects have articles on them or their sponsoring organizations. I can easily see a colleague asking me to work on their Wikipedia entry while I was affiliated but that doesn't mean someone is a paid editor, a PR person or even an official representative of a group. It does mean there is an inherent conflict-of-interest but, from what I've seen, you have been transparent and forthcoming about this.
The conflict is that there are editors on Wikipedia who are believe that any scholar or author who writes about science (off-wiki) be either a practicing scientist or someone like a journalist who specializes in writing about the sciences. Even an age-old and respected practice like acupuncture comes in for exceptional scrutiny. I think the key is "what are you (that is, any editor or the subject of the article) claiming to be true?" If there are claims that some course of treatment has health benefits, there will need to be reliable sources to support that assertion (and this excludes literature by the individual or organization). A problem that some new editors have is that they include assertions taken right out of the books of the authors without being able to back up the claims with references to reliable sources, particular in medicine or health research.
As far as my involvement, well, let's just say I'm wary. I don't know anything about Deepak Chopra other than that he's a best-selling author but I've never read any of his work. But because I have defended editors who are sympathetic to alternative science or alternative medicine, there is guilt by association and there will be other editors who will object to anything I have to say, without assessing its value. But it sounds like this is already a situation you have found yourself in! I can take the heat but I'm not sure how much anything I say will impact the article. That is, I'm not sure my opinion will hold any weight and I'll be effective. I also can't promise that there will be any agreement with your views and how I think the article could be shaped up. But I do have an open mind and I aim to abide by all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Soooo, what I will do is look over the situation and see if I can be of any help. I also might ask another editor or two if they think participating is wise. But, on Wikipedia there is no WP:DEADLINE and nothing is WP:PERFECT so there is always time and room for improvement, if not today than at some point in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liz (talk · contribs) - that's an interesting response. I have some questions, which I hope will do two things. Firstly, if you answer them well, you'd be demonstrating good medical knowledge and hence WP:COMPETENCE - which is required, and I (and I'm sure other watchers) would be much more confident of your ability to step into this discussion (and similar), which is clearly something you've been thinking about doing.
So, in relation to your comment above:
  • Who do you think acupuncture is "respected" by? Medical professionals?
    • If so, why do you think that [medical professionals, or whoever] respect, or should respect it? Because it's old? Because you think it works?
Moving on to some general medical questions:
Meanwhile, doctors use treatments that have been shown to work (in double-blind, placebo-controlled medical trial), even if they're not sure how those treatments work. The docs will prescribe the treatments while a medical scientists works in a lab, probably with animal models, to try to figure out why this is, and maybe even improve the treatment. But in such cases, it's possible to derive a hypotheses, albeit even a very general one, in terms of existing biological knowledge. For example "we think this drug binds to a protein which affects the behaviour of a cell - we're just not sure which protein it binds to, or what the cascade effect of this is"). This is known as cause and effect.
  • In medical context, how can acupuncture (or other alternate treatment of your choice) produce a desired effect?
Thanks in advance for your considered response.
This message is brought to you not trolling but in trying to understand where you are coming from. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You first, Barney. You know, so I can know where you are coming from. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liz thank you for your very thoughtful answer. Despite what barney is telling you, my role and my arguments are not about medical research or arguing for or against a medical source. The problem on the article simply involve biographical facts about the subject which are pretty straightforward. The majority of the editors hold very strong suspicions about the subject matter and not allot of knowledge (for example, Dr Chopra is not even an alternative medicine practitioner, yet the article was stating he was) and therefore are either omitting facts about his biography or framing them in such a way as to give the reader the same suspicions they hold. I just want the article to list biographical facts about the subject with the proper weight and neutrality. Just having one or two rational voices on the page would be very helpful to help editors stay neutral with the sources and the weight. Of course, seeing how you are already being harassed for even speaking with me, you see the problem getting quality neutral editors involved. No one wants to deal with the harassment :( SAS81 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, SAS81! I read over parts of the talk page discussion and it is just unwieldy and complex. Let me give you some frank advice. If you try to resolve your disagreements on the article talk page, you have a number of editors who strongly oppose you, regardless of what changes you suggest. Your edits should be judged, individually, on their merits but human nature being what it is, people get labeled. You are seen as a sympathizer so those editors who have a skeptical view on these matters will oppose your suggestions unless you make clear concessions like accepting the label of "pseudoscientist" for Chopra. Since editing conflicts are settled on consensus, you are frankly outnumbered in that forum.
So, what I'd suggest, since there has been discussion but no resolution on the article talk page, is to go to WP:DRN (dispute resolution or mediation). In this forum, each side can put forth their arguments and a mediator will guide the discussion and work toward a compromise. The decision will be based on the strength of your arguments and reliable sources, not about how many people you can draw to participate in a talk page discussion. It will also let you have the ability to list, point by point, what changes you are seeking. You might win some, lose some, win all, lose all, but there is a structure and civility to the proceedings of a dispute resolution while article talk page discussions can be a bit of a free-for-all.
Let me know if you do choose this route. I am reluctant to join in the talk page discussion because, while I have no strong opinions about Chopra (other than WP:BLP is an important policy), I am not seen as neutral. If this goes into mediation, I would feel comfortable assessing the article, your suggestions and offering my opinion. I realize that this is probably much more work than you expected this to be but dispute resolution would likely result in more lasting changes, rather than random edits that can easily be undone by those editors who have different perspectives from you. I should add that dispute resolution is a voluntary process so those editors who oppose your changes have to be willing to participate for the mediation to be effective.
Enjoy this spring day! Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Liz that DR is a good next step. Usually a first step in DR is a NB. In your case you did go to an appropriate NB, the BLP/NB. The next DR step would probably be the DR Notice Board, but before you do that I think you have to decide on what content you want resolution. I know you've been criticized for dealing with the article itself, and then when you went back to work on the content line by line beginning, well, with the beginning, you were criticized then too and told to deal with the article even as you were being told the article was fine.The first step I think is to resolve this. DR will work better for you if you deal with small bites at a time. The DR Notice Board does not require every editor in the discussion to declare that they will take part which is the case with formal mediation which presents obvious problems; if some editors refuse to to take part the mediation cannot take place. I'd go to the DR/ NB first once you've decided which approach to take.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Mark. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #109

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Thank you so much!

I just wanted to thank you again for explaining a lot of Wikipedia stuff to me, people like you are so kind and the reason why the world goes around. :) --Reigningbc (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Reigningbc. I remember my first days being an active editor here. There are a lot of different administrative areas "backstage", so to speak, that readers don't know about. The people who edit here regularly are familiar with policies and guidelines and will usually respond to a question by referring to one or another, which don't mean much if you are new to editing Wikipedia. My best advice to you is to visit WP:TEAHOUSE, they have a skilled and patient group of volunteers working there. I remember going there my first week and ranting about someone reverting me and how unfair it was and they helped me learn not to take such things personally. There is a steep learning curve but after you work through your first article, with all the speed bumps entailed, future articles will be easier. And if it helps, all of these rules exist to keep unsourced, tabloidish, opinions off the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think?

The reason I will not get into the article you commented on is because it is ideologically driven and I have no time for wiki politics and agenda pushing. I read the article and was astounded by the amount of bias and opinions pretending to be facts so I commented on it. Simply put I have more important things to work on than an article that is a left vs. right battleground. Thanks for your comment. 208.54.40.228 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but that is too bad. We need unbiased editors who value scientific sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated above it has come true when answering questions on the talk page. The accusers came like flies to you know what. I am accussed of not answering questions after another editor chose to close discourse on the talk page. Challenging their notions in any way is not welcome. Criticism is not well received by agenda warriors and they seem to come in groups which makes me wonder how many are lobbying or are in fact the one and same. No time for the nonsense. Agenda pushers do not matter in my world. Wikipedia is a waste of my time. Thanks for your input. 208.54.40.228 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request

Hello. I see that you have edited and worked hard on articles dealing with television programming. I have a question, that I hope you can help me out with. Regarding the article "List of programs previously broadcast by American Broadcasting Company". I was trying to remember the name of a program on ABC...shown in New York, some years past, every Saturday at 12 noon. It was a talk show news philosophical type program. I was wondering why that program (whatever the name was, that I can't recall right now), is not shown or mentioned anywhere in the WP article. It's one of those things that if I SAW the name somewhere, I would recall it. So I don't see it on the article. I was wondering and hoping if you might know what I'm referring to. It was on for YEARS...from what I remember, always on Saturday at 12 noon (at least shown in New York), on ABC...channel 7. I don't remember the name of the program for some reason. It was on in the 1990's, and into past 2000, I believe. And it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere in the article, as there is no "Saturday afternoon" headings anywhere, or anything that I notice for it under "news and talk show" etc. If I were to see the name of the show written somewhere, or mentioned to me, I would recall it immediately, as being the show. But I can't remember it right now off hand, and I don't see it anywhere on the WP article, for "past ABC programs". I hope you have an idea what I'm talking about, or know the program name in question. Please let me know. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, hello, Gabby Merger! I have only worked a little on television programming articles. I lived in New Jersey during this time but I don't recall this show. It sounds like a local show. I looked at WABC-TV but they only have news programs and on-air talent listed. I went to IMDb and found this list of programs distributed by WABC but nothing looks like the show you are describing. You could post your question on the WABC-TV article talk page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. You might look at television shows in the Category:Local talk shows in the United States or Category:Local television programming in the United States.
Those are the ideas that come to mind with the information you've given me. It could very well be that there is no mention of this show on Wikipedia (and you could try searching IMDb) but if you do remember the name, I hope you can remedy that situation. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You're not gonna believe this. I owe you thanks. One of the category links that you gave me to try "Category:Local talk shows in the United States" I went to. And not many "talk shows" are there, but a few are. And remember when I said that if I was to see the name of the show I would IMMEDIATELY know that that's the show? Well, lo and behold, the name of the show is "The Open Mind". But here's the problem. (And I was thinking this already.) It doesn't seem to have been aired on ABC...and that was where the confusion was. But I finally found the show, and I know that it was shown on Saturdays, at noon. But for some reason I thought it was showed on ABC channel 7. It was PBS!!! And I thought of that too. Anyway, sorry for the trouble. It was not on ABC, but PBS. Why I had ABC in my mind for this, I'm not sure. But I do really appreciate your help. You came through, even though you didn't know the show or find it per se, the clues and links you gave really did it for me. Much thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad, Gabby Merger....and, frankly, surprised! From your description, I didn't think there would be an article on the show. But it's great that you found your answer. I know it drives me crazy when I can't think of the name of an actor I saw in a TV episode or I can't remember what band had a hit song in 1996 that's been replaying in my mind. I'm happy that I could help. Liz Read! Talk! 11:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizer emboldened

FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, in which you participated, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi#Request per WP:NPA.

Suggestions/advice appreciated. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you disengage and take In ictu oculi's talk page off your watchlist. I see them saying, "I have no dispute with you, and am not interested in having one." I don't see this as uncivil behavior. Move on, do not interact with this editor, there are 4 million articles you can work on so you do not have to encounter each other. Pursuing this matter will lead to more frustration for you. That's my advice.
If it matters, I can not think of one editor that I know here that hasn't had unpleasant interactions with at least one other editor. Conflict is to be expected and it's important to know when to calmly persist in putting forth your arguments, when to compromise and when to just move on and work on other pages. I'm not saying it's easy, but otherwise you will be a very frustrated editor. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Very helpful. Much appreciated. --В²C ☎ 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One question: if IIO feels he has no dispute with me, why did he make that antagonizing statement, unprovoked, out of the blue? And again, if that was a one-time thing, it would be a no-brainer to walk away. But I've been putting up with such comments for years. I guess I'm getting sick of it. It's disruptive to achieving consensus. --В²C ☎ 01:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to speculate on an online user's motivations. It's hard for people to be honest on what motivates their own actions, much less know why other people do what they do. I'm sorry you are frustrated. If you can no longer WP:AGF, it's probably time for a wiki-break. Maybe not a long one, just a few days. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a big help. Very wise. I feel this is getting resolved through discussion. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 02:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your evenhandedness, alongside Ravensfire and Bushranger, in the matter of the block of 71.239.82.39 (Le Prof). Your speaking up first opened the door to others to approach the questions of the case as less open-and-shut that NeilN had portrayed them. It was, as you recognized early, a content-centered dispute, though in the end I believe it rubbed up against some very important fundamental policy areas where Wikipedia remains a playground instead of a serious, just workplace.

As you sensed, I do not "suffer fools gladly" as they say, especially when disinterested Huggle and Twinkle users fly into a situation, ignore Talk and look only at Edit summaries, and revert in a moment what might have been (and was, in my case) hours of thoughtful, quality aiming editorial work. You alone seem to have caught the gist of the matter—that "not dave" 's gut-the-article-if-need-be approach then taken on by NeilN flew in the face of widespread Wikipedia reality. Consistent citations (in BLP and in general), are just theory, and in many, many places very distant from the reality. (A cease in point is the article on Nazanin Fatehi, which brought me to the linked celebrity article on Afsen-Jam, that eventually brought down fire from the sky.) As you said, "in practice, there is a lot of... unsourced information ... on Wikipedia... left alone because it is not controversial", including much that is BLP.

Bottom line, I thank you for your open-mindedness and fairness, in a context where the lead opponent was committedly otherwise, even to the point of corner-cutting with situational details, even to the point of dissembling. (See my "last word" responses to NeilN's accuse-him-when-blocked here [6], where my last responses and my closing philosophical tome bear a bold, underlined Le Prof.) Though it did this particular process little good, and my plans for departure are still certain, please know that your involvement was a true ray of hope. It is unfortunate that sensible, thoughtful contributors like you, Ravens, and Bush rarely prevail in fly-by initiated cases.

Feel free to read the text at my User page, [7], before I leave—it is masked, but readable by choosing Edit—and I will mark your Talk page. Here also (something I never do here): 24531488, 21149638, 21087925, 24311580 (for instance). These, if Google-searched in conjunction with "PMID", will each give as their first hit, a separate kind of real contribution that we two have in common.

Finally, I would offer myself to help in any situation where comparable objectivity is needed, related to your effort. Just drop a note at my talk. Greyed as it is, I will still look to anything from you, and respond quickly. Again, appreciation, and respect, abounding. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the compliment even though some of your comment is rather cryptic! My concern in this case (and in others) is that the process of editor review is fair, I wasn't making a judgment on the content of the article.
I will add that editing Wikipedia is frequently a challenge for academics, not because of their lack of ability, it's just that, for most people, collaborative editing is a challenge. The fact that an editor can put time and effort into working on an article and their work can be undone by another editor simply by hitting the "Undo" button, can be maddening. Academics are used to being challenged and critiqued by their peers in their discipline but it is humbling to be criticized by anonymous users and be obligated to respond and dialog in order to create a consensus for changes that you believe are uncontroversial. It's hard for all of us to do but I think it is extra challenging for those who are professionals in their field.
Good luck with your future efforts, wherever they might be! Liz Read! Talk! 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
With this award I acknowledge, with abiding respect, Liz's consistent service here in editorial civility and diplomacy: for exhibiting orders of magnitude greater attention, diligence, and engagement in Wikipedia content and policy disputes that come her way in general, and in particular in the recent process of blocking an old Professor. (Her effort, as much as anything, might have kept one more content expert in the Wikipedia fold.) Note, this is only the second award of any type that I have given in my tenure here, and the first to an editor. Le Prof . Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Leprof 7272. I'm glad I could help! Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent communications

Thank you for you're warning about the edit issues with the page Jetix I notice you have been fair and give both of us a warning, But it seems the other users has also given me the same warning, which to be fair is the pot calling the kettle black: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazyseiko&oldid=608423006 I think this is rather unfair. Can you tell me what actions I should/ can or etc talk? --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crazyseiko, ONE warning for edit-warring on a single article is sufficient. I don't know what Spshu was thinking to place a second warning there, right under the first warning. Feel free to remove it. I want to emphasize that this was just a warning because you are both at 3 reverts. One more revert and it is likely that a complaint will be filed at WP:EWN. So, please do not continue this behavior, please try to discuss your differences on the article talk page. Hopefully, other editors will participate in the discussion and a consensus will be clearer. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you didn't name it some how after the article, giving a month year section name, Liz. He is at 4 reverts. He said he would address the issue then continued to push the PR crap if you bother to read the discussion, Liz. Spshu (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is unnecessarily hostile, Spshu. I used the warning template that comes with Twinkle and the date appears in my signature along with a reference to Jetix.
You were both involved in an edit war and could be reported, regardless of the content of the edit. But I think you are well aware of Wikipedia policies. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hostile, you are here claiming that I am hostile to Crazyseiko for adding another warning. So, you being unnecessarily hostile when I show I have acted in good faith with Seiko by indicating I was in discussion with him is hostile. So, hostile is admitting why a mistake occurred (the duplicate 3RR warning on Seiko's page). The issue was resolved (I though) base on what was said on the talk page! So, enforcing what he agreed to on the talk page plus removing duplicated information and he just mostly blindly adds back in or making an edit that show I am attempt to include some thing that I think I might have missed from his perspective is edit warring? There isn't an absolute rule re: "regardless of the content of the edit" as there are rules about outright vandalism. Gee, thank for all AGF. If you want AGF then give AGF. Spshu (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain, The Paragraph come from the UK Jetix page, User believe that was content fork and was also blanket that page, (no idea why its the same company) So I moved it over to the Jetix page. The user said "rmv. primary source marketing speak" Not actually trying to fix the page. I made the changes, reworded the information, found a tone of refs, and even added in quote from the business manager, To be fair did what he wanted, but he seems to rather dislike any quotes from company's personnel, which is used else where in wikipedia. I know I shouldn't have done it, but I made alot of changes to comply. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&oldid=608432632"