User talk:Liz

'tis the fall season!

This page was last edited or modified by VivaElGeneralissmo (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!}

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

Welcome!

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:

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

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!

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you weedy fat-kidneyed bugbear!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you frouard onion-eyed flap-dragon.

Hmm never seen this template before, but in my opinion its abusive and a personal attack and its should be discontinued.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 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! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Descent

Hi, thanks for your input. What changes have I made to these "descent" pages that you find contentious or problematic? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Bohemian Baltimore, thanks for replying here. There is a very large existing category tree for the "of descent" categories and the subject is contentious because there are editors who argue that the entire structure should be deleted because of the vagueness of "descent". While each individual's ethnicity should be verified through reliable sourced in their biography articles, things can get more sloppy in categorization, especially with tools like HotCat, categories are easily assigned and removed very quickly. You have to be careful that the categories you are creating logically fit into the existing category structure and are not just organizational division that makes sense to you. Each category has parent categories and often has child categories so their relationship to those other categories needs to be considered.

The area you are currently working in, the "of Jewish descent" categories are especially contentious and hours have been spent debating and arguing about them, particularly on the WikiProject Judaism talk page last year. Israeli categories are more straight-forward because it can be considered a nationality. But there was a point last spring where some individuals argued that if there was a category like "Brazilian people of Jewish descent", then it should be in the parent categories of Middle Eastern people or Asian people because of historic ties between Jewish identity and the Middle East (however distant that may be). Hair was pulled out over this and there was eventually an agreement to stay with the status quo, whatever that had been at the time the dispute started.

Many of the most intractable disputes that have landed at the Arbitration Committee have involved ethnic identity, it's an ongoing source of intermittent conflict. So, I didn't mean to chide you, because I work with categories myself. It was just a caution that when you work with "of descent" categories, please work within the existing category structures instead of creating innovative new ways to identify people by ethnicity. Be careful but I agree that it's a fascinating part of Wikipedia and I hope you will see the incredibly diversity of ethnic background for many of the individuals who have Wikipedia biographies.

Sorry to write so much but I think I've personally gone through every descent category so they are on my Watchlist and it just lit up with you edits. Let me know if you have any questions and please, take some time away from the keyboard and have a pleasant weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:MFD

Thank you for the comment. I wasn't really expecting the MFD last long, although I confess that I had hoped maybe one or two additional editors would have a chance to weigh in. Also, it should have occurred to me what you meant when you said "involved", but I missed that until just now. Would you mind terribly if I ask you a question related to your RFA here on your talk page? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fire away, TomStar81...I'll do my best to answer your question. I hope you understand that I'll have a much better assessment about what is happening here once it is over. When one is in the midst of an experience, one is not terribly accurate in making sense about what is occurring which is one caution against putting too much faith in primary sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the consideration. My question is this: When did you realize you were more of wiki-gnome person then a content creation person? I personally have no opinion on whether this is preferable, but usually its the articles that entice people to join so they can edit. Your contributions, though, are more 'behind-the-scenes' related such as it were, so it seems a little odd to me that you would take to wiki-gnoming as opposed to the showroom editing that me and so many others prefer. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, TomStar81...wikignoming is the kind of editing I did for years when I edited as an IP account. I'd be reading an article and see a typo or a sentence with awkward phrasing or a table that was completely malformed and I'd just fix it. It was basic copy-editing and I continued to do that once I created this account. It came naturally to me.

I fell into categorization because I saw a lot of miscategorization or inadequate categorization on articles and it appealed to my desire to organize information. I worked for years in a library when I was younger and later at a national archive for a year and a half. I worked on cataloging agency records which seemed to me to be a very similar type of work as we created finding aids. On Wikipedia, I began to spend time at WP:CFD where I learned more about standards of categorization on Wikipedia.

I don't have a strong desire to do "showroom editing" or get on the main page, you're right, I'm more behind-the-scenes type of person. But there is still a lot of work that could be done on articles in the sociology area which aren't as solid as those in other academic disciplines. So, I hope to make a contribution in that area as I have some of the necessary resources to provide additional references to articles. Maybe we can bring a few of them up to GA level.

I hope you are having a lovely weekend. All the best, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Interesting that you too started off as an IP editor, then graduated to account editing. As for my weekend, I've had better: one mental health veteran freaked us, one potential job loss for the family, one funeral at which me and dad and my brother were ostracized because my mother's half of the extended family apparently hates us now, and I lost my MFD without anyone having really had a chance to give their two cents on the matter due a perception of "disruptive edit", so...yeah. Somewhere out in the great distance a voice calls out "why", but I lack the ability to solve this riddle, and that bothers me immensely. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a lot of grief to be absorbed, TomStar81. Your real-life issues always take precedence and it sounds like it was a rough weekend.

Regarding the MfD, well, there has been a lot of work and refection done on what is "wrong" with the Request for adminship process (see Category:RFA Reform for starters). If you noticed, this was the third time someone had nominated that page for deletion so you are not the only person to see a problem with it. I think if you have any proposals or float an idea for improvement, post it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. There are a lot of editors who have that talk page on their Watchlist and I think you will get a better response either there or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

But most of all, don't let this weekend go by without doing something enjoyable. There is still time! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not allowed to edit the RFA pages. It was a condition set forth when I sued for peace in the aftermath of a failed attempt to support a few candidates (incidentally, that is why I asked my question here instead of over at RFA, and why I haven't rendered an S/O/N !vote). As for the village pump, you are correct that I could bring this up there, but it wouldn't accomplish anything. The issue(s) have been discussed to death for eight very long years and all people have determined is that the process is broken. Despite the fact that everyone agrees its broken no one can push forward with any reforms because we still have a hideously broken but active process. If the MFD had worked we would have been forced to come up with something new and different that would serve us better than the existing RFA process, but that will not happen as long as the current RFA process continues to exist. As for the grief, this is not the first time I have been called upon to tolerate the intolerable and bear the unbearable. I've been playing video games most of the weekend to enjoy myself, and I am working on a project of personal interest. On an unrelated note, you remind me a lot of Phaedriel (talk · contribs), a retired editor who cared for the community as a whole and strove to make Wikipedia a happier place for everyone. Promise that whatever happens on this site you will not lose that heart, because from where I sit it is by far and away your biggest asset. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Comments on your RfA are starting to make my head hurt and the Gamergate doxxing stuff you had to go through (even if you were "fairly lucky") sounds absolutely horrible. The fact that you've managed to survive the last few days without exploding is amazing. You more than deserve this barnstar. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv, this is very kind. Some of the opposes were expected, others less so.
But I need to focus on what I can learn from this experience! I actually thought that Gamergaters might put in an appearance here but I think I've done such limited editing on the main article, that I'm not on their radar any more. For that, I am grateful. I don't think there is much positive about being in an internet spotlight, even if it just lasts a few days. Luckily, most people on social media have a short attention span and move on to the next talked-about person or event. There's probably social research that's being done on this same subject somewhere right now which would be interesting to read. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What Bilorv said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Also want to agree with Bilorv. When you were active on ANI, you injected some sanity in the place. I find it really harsh that people are holding that, and your very generous AGF against you. I certainly hope you pass. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA is always a stressful time for the candidate, you never know what might turn up to cause people to vote a "pile on" oppose. I wish I could be more positive, given the nominators you'd have thought I'd be a "strong support"; still, I think the RfA will probably pass. Supports are still coming in (you've got far more than I accrued during my own RfA as it is) and even if the level of support drops below 80%, I think a Bureaucrat Discussion will probably conclude the same. What I would say is after it closes, do read the oppose votes back carefully and try and take whatever criticism you can find. The best summary I can think of is the excellent Observations on Wikipedia Behaviour - "Try to be as tolerant as you possibly can regarding edits by established contributors." For what it's worth, my Question 12 was based on this and real events such as Talk:Donner Party#Content Gaps. Best of luck, anyhow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333 but the RfA is entering "discretionary range" so I don't know what to expect. Even when the percentage was at 95%, I knew that an RfA can radically change overnight and didn't take anything for granted.

I can guarantee that I will take all opposes to heart but I can't alter my editing patterns or my contribution history in seven days so the words will only have an impact on my editing practices after this RfA concludes. I also will have clearer eyes then and I'll be able to see the kernel of truth in the criticism which my adviser (and employer) used to tell me was always there. Right now though, I just feel the sting of harsh words. I realize that I'm not supposed to take any of this personally but when it's all about me, what I've done or not done, whether me being an admin will help or hurt the project, well, it feels very personal.

But I greatly appreciate you coming to my talk page and sharing this advice. Things got so heated on Friday that it was recommended to me to spend the weekend away from Wikipedia but I do intend to check in and see if any additional questions have been posted. Thanks again, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Re "Things got so heated on Friday", FWIW, Friday was a Full Blue Moon @ 6:43am EST. (Do people undergo extra stress or act wilder then!?) IHTS (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

• Israel: Wikimedia Israel's annual conference helps expanding its education activity
• Community: Join the Community Health learning campaign on Meta
• Global: Wikimania 2015: education highlights
• Education Collaborative: Wikipedia Education Collaborative is changing. Be part of the movement!
• Media: Articles of interest in other publications: Wikimania, Wikipedians in residence and public domain value

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No-fun RFA

Hi, Liz. I can't blame you for feeling gutted by the RFA altogether, even though you will surely get the mop at the end of it. Also I've come to think my own blunt oppose may have been a bit of a shock for you. While I stand by what I said, it would have been kinder to prepare you better for it, because I don't think you read my original question as quite so serious or so critical as I meant it to be. I'm sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, shock is the perfect word for this entire experience. I am not assuming that this RfA will pass, a lot can happen in two days.

To tell you the honest truth, I was surprised at the early surge of support in the first two days and then stunned by the strong opposes on Thursday and Friday. I knew there would be some opposition to me because of my lack of content creation but I know there are a lot of admins who don't create content so I underestimated how serious this would be for some editors and admins.

I also didn't think that comments I made years ago would haunt me now. I took a long wikibreak away from Wikipedia last year and I don't feel like I'm the same editor I was in 2013. But, you've gone through your own RfA and you know that candidates are heavily scrutinized and everything one has done (or not done) can be the subject of criticism. It's the community consensus process.

I hope you are having a pleasant summer weekend. Be well, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My RFA was brutal and nasty, with a couple of blocks, side switching and the like, so I can empathize. RFAs are a bit more mellow today than then, but they are still difficult. It isn't uncommon to get early support while editors like myself ponder for a few days before deciding. I find myself supportive of you as an editor and look forward to supporting you as an admin one day, but I couldn't today. It isn't personal, it is just that affinity/friendship is moved to the side at RFA so that one can do what they feel is best for Wikipedia. I've nominated 12 candidates, 8 of them passed (3 by unanimous consent) so I'm pretty familiar with the emotions that are involved. Fortunately, the barriers in your way are generally fixable with time, and most everyone in the oppose section has been sincere and helpful (At mine, I was compared to a school marm and worse, for example, so it could be uglier). And yes, I had old AFDs dragged up (I had 1400 under my belt at that time, so it was easy to find ONE that someone disagreed with), and 5.5 years to make mistakes. I barely passed with 81%. RFA is never assured. Yours is on the edge, but regardless of outcome, take it in stride and as a learning experience, and you will go far. It isn't personal, and it doesn't speak to your worth as an editor. Most importantly, embrace those that oppose you and learn from them. Eric (then known as Malleus Fatuorum) opposed me but I chose to engage him, then he helped me create two GAs, an FA and TFA, all firsts for me. Funny how life works that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Liz, I opposed your RFA but also realize that receiving such frank, negative scrutiny no matter if a minority opinion or couched in polite terms is never a pleasant experience. And the off-wiki doxing is unforgivable, and even some comments that question your real-life qualifications are infuriating. No panacea to offer, but hope that you keep in mind that the RFA opposes are just opinions about some of your editing on wikipedia, and not informed comments about you as a person (fwiw, you come across as a sensible and nice person). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Abecedare, there are lots of ways an editor can tell me that I need to improve in some areas that don't involve a public pointed appraisal of me where I fall massively short. You can post a helpful note to my talk page or say you are Neutral and can't support me because of X, Y and Z.

Editors and admins say again and again that the RfA is a brutal process and they want to make it more humane and bearable but, at this point, I don't think there is a sincere desire to change it. If you think a candidate is unworthy of the mop, then say "Oppose" and offer a simple reason why without dissecting an editor in public, pointing out a few of the mistakes they've made and say they are typical behavior. There seems to be some need to justify Opposes by going into great detail about why an editor is inadequate and, the craziest part of this is, is that the candidate is not supposed to take any of the remarks personally! We are supposed to be grateful and gracious about being put down. In fact, even this response to you is likely to be cited by someone as a reason to oppose me.

I looked at your RFA and see you sailed through with only minor bumps. How would you have felt if you had been under greater scrutiny, your edits combed through and any errant comments you had made examined and put up to the spotlight? Are you saying you made no mistakes, no snap judgments that you regretted, no ill-timed sarcasm, no edits you wish you could have taken back?

I beginning to think that the only way the RfA process will be less scarring is if all admins have to go through reconfirmation every five years. They might then remember what it was like to be in the hot seat for seven long days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RFA votes serve at least four purposes, (1) feedback to candidate, (2) justification of support/opposition to show that the opinion is based in reason/evidence, (3) campaigning other voters and page-watchers to vote likewise, and most fundamentally (4) as a community decision process for promoting a candidate to adminship. That is the reason, I don't believe they can be adequately replaced by messages on user's talk-page; neutral comments; short opposes; or simple up-down vote. Some of the unpleasantness may thus be unavoidable (or at last, avoidable only at a loss of some of the desirable features), but I do wish that the "campaigning" aspect of the votes didn't result in hyperbolic and polarized comments that project the candidate as a wiki-savior or wiki-destroyer, which in case of any candidate on the bubble is never true. I don't believe reconfirmation RFAs will make the process any more pleasant either; and I say that as someone who effectively had an (uneventful) reconfirmation.

But right now may not be the best time to discuss such theoretical issues. As you say, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be feeling good about myself or kindly towards the opposers, RFA or wikipedia in general. And unless you are superhuman, I don't see how that can be avoided in the short term. All I can urge you is to keep some perspective since it would be sad to gain an admin who is disgusted with the project, or lose a generally sensible editor. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs)

There's absolutely no shame in the "shock" analogy above. I'm sorry this is so difficult. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're squarely in the "discretionary zone" between obviously passing and obviously failing. You should take that as a good sign, my first RFA was a flat-out failure that went down in flames long before it was due to close. Thre months later I ran again, and not only did I pass, I went on to become a member of the functionaries team and served a term on ArbCom. Whatever happens here you should see this is a win for you. Nearly 200 users have expressed their support, and a lot of the opposers express their regret at doing so . I would imagine that if this doesn't pass now a lot of those same users will support a second RFA in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The selected diffs in my editing history that some people take issue with aren't going to disappear, even if I write a GA or two in the future. It's part of my baggage, apparently forever. Pass or not, Beeblebrox, the challenge will be trying to repair working relationships that seem bruised if not broken.

As I rediscovered in this RfA, you can strike out or revert an edit (words) but it always exists in the page history. That's my main takeaway from this entire experience. An editor can forget her edits but Wikipedia always remembers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Liz, ignore the opposes some I assure you are political in nature. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I knew from the start that I was not going to respond to opposes because I think it is badgering the editor and there are valid reasons for opposing any candidate. I did reply to one oppose when the editor was dismayed that I was not responding to editors' complaints about me. Otherwise, I needed to keep some distance, for the sake of the voters and for my own piece of mind.

Once this is over, I plan on going carefully through all supports and opposes and try to digest the feedback. Right now, my feelings are still a little raw and I'm not in the most receptive frame of mind to read through four dozen critiques of me and my editing history. The passage of time increases one's ability to be objective, when one isn't in the midst of the experience.

As for why people do what they do, that's what psychologists are for. It's difficult enough to know oneself and ones own motivations, much less speculate about other people's reasons. It's all about assuming good faith and being civil and respectful of your fellow editors. I believe that to be true but I also know that everyone has bad days...I know I have made decisions/edits I regret and I'd wager so has every other editor. Ultimately, I guess it's all about trust. Here ends the daily refection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You should look for opposes that are constructive criticism I agree, but don't let the opposes get to you is what I am saying as not all of them are good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Liz. I supported your RfA, and I want to give you a message of good cheer. I'm sorry to read that your feelings are still a little raw, although it's entirely understandable. I don't know what the Crats are going to decide, and I'm glad that I don't have to make the decision, because it really could go either way. But I want to say very sincerely that I don't think that stuff from your past is irreparable for RfA purposes. Give it plenty of time; think about the issues raised when you feel ready to do so; find some ways to demonstrate through edits that you have listened to some of the opposers; and when you eventually feel ready for another RfA, craft your opening statements to show that you have learned. If you end up in a repeat RfA, you don't have to change that many minds to get to 80% – and you don't have to worry about that other 20%. It's very do-able. And it's an irrefutable fact that a lot of editors, including me, showed up to express positive opinions of you! Wikipedia, well, it's just a website. It should be a hobby, not a job, not a hassle. I wish you lots of happiness going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #169

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

• Discussions
  • Open requests for Oversight: Sjoerddebruin
  • Enable Flow on Wikidata?
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Early version of a reconcile API for Wikidata by Magnus
  • PagePile: a new tool by Magnus
  • Mix-n-Match got a number of new catalogs and now shows a thin red line in front of a catalog that does not yet have a property on Wikidata
  • 1.700 biographical items without gender, but with image. Go go go!
  • Interested in art movements? Check out this
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: MoMA artwork id, Facebook ID, cuisine, Cooper-Hewitt Person ID, Exif make, Exif model, IPNI publication ID, ZooBank publication ID, ZooBank author ID, Catalogus Professorum Halensis, NALT id
  • Showcase items: László Krasznahorkai (Q512062)
• Development
  • Minor fixes to property edit mode
  • Some fixes for the cucumber test errors
  • Released Wikibase DataModel 4.0
  • Released Wikibase DataModel Services 1.0
  • Continued work to migrate away from old serializers in Wikibase Lib to those in WikibaseDataModelSerialization.
  • Working on scripts for importing entities from another Wikibase instance (e.g. Wikidata), so that development instances can have some sample data.
  • Fixed the counting of references
  • Changed style of the Entitytermsview inputs
  • Entity Selector displays alias in brackets behind label
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 19:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD notice

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, NickCT. It looks like the discussion was wrapped up extremely fast, less than 2 1/2 hours after the nomination was posted. There was plenty of participation and I don't think mine would have altered the outcome. But I appreciate the notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Extremely fast. I knew a delete result was a longshot, but I was surprised by the speed with which a keep came back. Frankly, I take the super fast response as more evidence that there's too much emotion surrounding this topic on WP for a rational decision. A topic which is pretty much a non-issue IRL.....

Anyways, thanks for the reply. And good luck with the admin request. Looks like you'll nail it.... NickCT (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, I think that Gamergate-related articles will improve over time, I'm just not sure how much time it will take. I thought the entire controversy would be over in a couple of months but the social media discussion continues.

As for the RfA, last time I looked this morning, I was in the "discretionary range" (between 70-80% support) so ultimately one or a few bureaucrats will weigh all of the pros and cons and make a decision tomorrow morning. All I'm sure of is that I will be glad to be out of the spotlight and back to regular editing. Thanks for the good luck wishes! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

They'd be crazy to decide against you. Best, NickCT (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts, late in the game

My dear Liz,

I have considered the recent opposes, many written by editors I greatly respect. I have considered their points, many of which have some validity, which I am sure that you are also considering in a careful fashion. I have weighed those opposes and believe that the best thing that I can do at this point is to reiterate my support for you and your candidacy, because I remain convinced that you will be a good administrator, whether now, or in the future.

The above is a slight rewrite of what I just posted at the RfA page. In addition, I must add that I feel great compassion for you in what must be a very difficult time for you. I can only imagine the pain you are now feeling, and the only thing I can say right now is that I would be happy to discuss things with you in days to come, as you try to understand this situation. I bid you peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've switched to support and you just hit WP:RFX200, and it's gone to a crat chat, so fingers crossed..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333, this is a pleasant surprise! I appreciate your support. Yes, Wikipedia's bureaucrats are getting called on to decide a number of RfAs this year. We'll see what they decide, there seems to be quite a bit of discussion on the talk page but I'm steering clear of that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Liz. I'm sorry about the whole RfA - you handled yourself beautifully. If I'd known how much of a tough experience it was going to be, I wouldn't have pushed so hard for you to run. Whatever the outcome, focus on the support, over 200 people turned out to say you're doing a fine job (even if some were later struck). That's a significant number by anyone's standards and you should be proud of what you're doing. There is some useful feedback within the opposition section, I know you've already taken some of it on board - don't be disheartened by the number. If there's anything I can ever do, you know where to find me. Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Halfway through, I began to think it was a decision that would come down to a 'crat chat. It seems that many recent RfAs that last a full week end up in the 70s% support range and need to be evaluated by Wikipedia's bureaucrats. I trust they will consider all of the votes and comments and come to a decision they think is best for the project. I appreciate your support along with that of Yunshui and Blade. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I don't like visiting RfA as it's too unsettling and uncomfortable sometimes. Good advice can come from RfA even if overwhelming and disguised sometimes and, after my own RfA in 2012, I partly questioned and still question it sometimes the time I spend here. WJBScribe summarized it nicely that the good editors that spend good time here are not here to waste their time making this site better. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SwisterTwister. I am relatively new to AfD and you have already taught me so much on how best to participate in a discussion. This is one area that I look forward to improving in, following the example of editors more experienced than I. And I appreciate the pie! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope for the best here =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Knowledgekid87. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion, take it or leave it

Liz,

I don't think we've interacted much. I was an Arbcom clerk, resign for complicated reasons, and felt guilty about it. We technically overlapped, but you became a clerk about the same time I stopped contributing in that area. Why am I telling you this? To explain that my guilt for dropping out cause me to pay attention to your actions as a clerk, and your fine handling helped assuage my guilt for abruptly dropping out.

Your RFA has been interesting to say the least. I see editors I highly respect on both sides. I'm watching the 'crat chat, which may resolve even as I'm writing this but at the moment they appear to be struggling.

One person opined "that you haven't often "cut the Gordian knot". I'm not here to agree or disagree with that comment, my goal is to try to cut the Gordian knot myself.

You've seen a number of editors concerned about your lack of content creation. (I know you have many mainspace edits and I haven't looked closely, but I assume they are gnomish in character.) I read your explanation of why you spent so little time in serious content creation. It struck a chord with me. I have decades of experience with financial economics, yet I almost never edit in those areas. Why? Because it would feel like work and I didn't come to Wikipedia to extend my workday. So I am very sympathetic with someone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia but doesn't want to feel compelled to work in any particular area.

That said, you are interested in becoming an administrator. While there is no formal rule that one has to have substantial content creation to be an administrator, I think there is substantial value in having that experience. Even if one plans to not do any substantial content work after becoming an administrator, the experience would be quite helpful in dealing with administrative issues. Therefore, I recommend that you consider the following: Inform the 'crats that you are gratified by the substantial support for your candidacy. Very few RFAs in history have garnered 200 supports. That said, the concern that admins ought to have experience with content creation is a valid concern, and while you don't want to do it and don't plan to do it substantially in the future, you agree that spending 3 to 6 months with an increased emphasis on content creation would provide you the insight that so many editors think is valuable. You might even enjoy it but that's not the point. In fact, if you did it and it reinforced your lack of desire to spend much time there because it wasn't fun, it still would provide more insight into the mindset of content creators.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, in 3 or 6 months, Gamergate may be even better organized to brigade last-minute votes. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just responding here to say that Sam Walton presented some data on this, which can be viewed here, especially this and this. Samsara 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it sounds like you are arguing that I should withdraw my candidacy. To be honest, I did consider this on Friday when I was surprised by opposes I received from editors I had cordial relationships with. And I had a strong desire to pull the plug on the bashing I was receiving.

But I thought of the support I received from my nominators who all emailed me, volunteering to nominate me for an RfA. And I thought of the 100 supports that I received in the first few days which, frankly, blew me away. Maybe they were a lot editors I had welcomed when they started editing Wikipedia, I don't know. I certainly didn't expect to receive 200 supports...but I also didn't expect to receive 72 opposes!

I know it would be easier for everyone if I threw in the towel on this. But determining consensus in a RfA is what being a bureaucrat is all about. They are entrusted with making some of the hardest decisions on Wikipedia and I don't want to second-guess them. I'm content with letting bureaucrats do what they do and accepting the results with equanimity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't "withdraw" at this point anyway – when Cyberpower did that during his "Crat Chat", the 'Crats concluded that you can't "withdraw" from an RfA that has run its full course, and so closed it as "No consensus". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly Liz I see this as a bit of a success in your part. Yes I did "vote" in opposition HOWEVER look at the number of people on here that stopped, knew who you were and voiced their opinion. You don't get things done without pissing some people off! That is what is great about this place, we may not agree with each other but we can co-exist! Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nokuse Plantation

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Chris. I appreciate it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it

Can't leave much of a comment because my state is in a maelstrom of fallen trees and lost power, but I'm sorry I didn't catch your RfA in time to support it. You've been solidly aboveboard and fair in all the interactions I've seen and I wish you the best of luck in the upcoming Bcrat coin flip. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support, Protonk. I hope the bureaucrat chat will involve more deliberation than a coin flip but I do realize that it could go either way at this point.

Sounds like you had quite a series of thunderstorms come through your area. We could use the rain south of you, as the lawns are turning brown. That's not unusual in some parts of the country but is very atypical for New Jersey. i hope you get your power back on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I also missed your RfA and would have gladly supported. . Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster7, You might keep an eye on the RfA process these days as there seems to be at least one candidacy a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to WP:200. That's a rare accomplishment. Sorry to see you sitting the same boat I sat in at my RfA. Funny enough same percentage, resulting in a cratchat you apparently landed perfectly on the tip of the needle. :p It looks like the crats are leaning towards promoting you by a hair. If you do get promoted, let me be the first to congratulate you. If not, then better luck next time.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, thanks for the chat summary...I haven't looked at the 'crat chat and won't for quite a while. As I'm sure you know, it's unnerving to be a subject of other people's conversations. It's better to read over all of the back and forth and absorb the information after the decision has been made.

I know I said on your talk page that I hope you would launch another RfA in six months. I still hope you do. But after this experience, I can understand it if you decide not to...it is quite an unforgettable experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfA honestly didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. I would gladly do it again, and I plan to launch another RfA. The opposition can be made into useful advice, for the most part, which I find to be valuable.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a healthy attitude, Cyberpower678, and one I hope I can adopt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Per the bureaucrat discussion, I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the new tools. Maxim_(talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Maxim. I know it was a complicated RfA, lots of comments to go through and I'll be thanking every bureaucrat who spent their time participating in the chat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on the new mop! Well deserved. — Strongjam (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well merited. Congratulations. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations on the bit, Liz. Your RfA seemed excruciating. Feel free to contact me if you ever want to collaborate on some content. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It was mainly very awkward, Gobonobo being the subject of so much scrutiny and debate. I expected some of the oppposes but I didn't know my edit history would be examined so meticulously. By the end though, I was at peace with either passing or not passing. As for collaboration, I would be up for that, if it's on a subject where I think I could make a contribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. Congratulations! — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on the successful request, Liz. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations for the promotion. And remember to fix the topicons on your page! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guess those will have to change, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many congratulatory sections I'm not sure where to place mine! Congratulations for passing your RfA—calling it an ordeal would be an understatement at this point. Good luck with the mop! Altamel (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Altamel. It was less of an ordeal than it could have been when I made the decision before-hand not to counter each Oppose with a comment or explanation. That conduct looks defensive to me and I didn't want to badger anyone. There will be time enough in coming days to consider each Oppose and note the concerns raised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was late to the party, but congratulations on your very well deserved promotion! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Lankiveil, thanks, congratulations can never come too late! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Rock on!

Congrats on your RFA! You'll do great.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations Liz, and thank you for your service to the project! - MrX 01:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed, congratulations, I hope that waiting to see which way it would go wasn't too unbearable for you. If you would allow an old curmudgeon one piece of advice: some of the opposes came from some very sharp people (I'm thinking of Dennis Brown, Drmies, Bishonen and Bbb23 in particular, but there were others as well), so I hope that you will take their comments to heart and learn what you can from them. Enjoy the bit! BMK (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BMK, I will pay attention to their advice and concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, congratulations, Liz! And, again, I want to express my regret at what you had to go through to get there. Much of it was grossly unfair, I thought. But I'm glad that you triumphed in the end. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Listen up, I'm actually glad you got the bit – even though I opposed. I had my reasons, which hopefully were not bundled in with the content creation opposes, because that's not what I meant – but I digress. After seeing all of the pile ons, I really felt bad. This has got to be the most drawn out and intense RfA I've ever witnessed, and you not only survived it and kept your cool but damn it wasn't successful! You truly deserved it after all of that, and I am sure you'll take the more valid opposition concerns to heart and will fare well as an admin. Just know that despite my oppose !vote, I have no less respect for you than I do the next guy, and that if you ever need anything my door is always open. Congrats and welcome aboard, Liz! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MusikAnimal, that has to be the nicest oppose I received! I may knock on your door in coming days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All right!!!!

It has become apparent that you

are now an administrator

are now an administrator

are now an administrator

are now an administrator

are now an administrator

are now an administrator

are now an administrator

so you are now officially awesome.

I'll have a glass of Kavalan whiskey in celebration, and I owe you at least two for convincing you to put yourself through this. I know you'll do great, and if you ever need another admin for any reason don't hesitate to ping me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That is an awesome message to greet me this morning, Blade! I appreciate your support through this whole process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that it doesn't take RfA to be declared awesome, see my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Gerda. This isn't so much a change in status as much as it is about additional responsibilities and accountability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Christ. That was a bitch. In short of something significant to say, I will get drunk in celebration as well. Congrats! Swarm ♠ 01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After the 108 proof Kavalan I've got some 115.8 proof Sipsmiths gin and 110 proof Old Raj I'll share with everyone. I might even use one or both and my 100 proof Smirnoff to make a Vesper. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto on the congratulations for the well-deserved mop! bd2412 T 01:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding another congrats! (With so many sections to pick from, I'll go with the colorful one :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, I greatly appreciate your support, especially those who came to my defense when they thought I was being unfairly criticized. I have a lot of feedback to sift through and I plan on taking the valid concerns to heart. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, Liz! Thanks for your willingness to take on extra responsibilities. I am confident that you will use your new tools judiciously. 209.131.236.219 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new toolset

They are very sharp tools, and can cut deep and swift. Be wise and considerate.
May your hand be steady, your aim be true and your mind be an oasis of calm.
→StaniStani 01:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I borrow that quote, Stanistani? I think I'd like those words to be permanently on the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections. You are in for interesting times.→StaniStani 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

May you use your powers for good! :) Glad to have voted for you! Thereandnot (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Congratulations on your successful result as an administrator. I voted support so I wish you the best of luck EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

• Editorial: Wikipedia better equipped to deal with systemic bias than traditional publishers

• Op-ed: Je ne suis pas Google

• News and notes: VisualEditor, endowment, science, and news in brief

• WikiProject report: Meet the boilerplate makers

• In the media: Probe into Nehru edits launched; dangers of the right to be forgotten

• Traffic report: Mrityorma amritam gamaya...

• Featured content: Maya, Michigan, Medici, Médée, and Moul n'ga

• Blog: Get help editing Wikipedia with the new “Co-op” mentorship program

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats and good job

Congrats on becoming a manager. You were always kind to me when I was new. Thank you Cavalierman (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, we've never spoken, but I'm aware of you and supported you in your RFA. I was one of the people who defined the "admin" role to begin with, and in my assessment, you are ideal admin material. It is a shame that the whole RFA process has become such a drama-laden, axe-grinding experience. Anyway, congrats on surviving it and I'm sure you'll do a fine job. Warm regards Manning (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Liz. We've never spoken either, and while I voted against you, I wanted to congratulate you on getting through the gauntlet. I wasn't expecting that it would become the drama-fest that it was. Please don't block me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You deserve this for simply getting the bit after all that stress. Congrats again. :D —cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

+1 — Yash! ^(Y) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

More congratulations!

• Congratulations on your successful RfA, and for making WP:200! Best of luck! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Erg... It's WP:RFX200 – WP:200 is essentially a disambiguation page... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your successful RFA, and I'm sorry it was undoubtedly rather unpleasant. However, if my impression of you from the RFA is accurate, you'll take it in stride and continue to be a voice of reason and common sense. Best of luck and feel free to stop by if you have any questions about your new role. Andrevan@ 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• And from the saner 99.9% of Manchester UK ... well done indeed! 86.180.137.64 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Uncalled for... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping us with our admin burdens. Remember that we are servants of the community and not the masters of it. If you have any questions or just want to know which cabals to join just pop by my talk page. Chillum 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't offer help, but support the service aspect, which I am sure you know anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For navigating a thorny RfA without losing your cool. Thanks for stepping up to clean out the Augean stables. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Welcome to the Cabal! I'm sure that RfA was quite tough on you, but tomorrow's a brighter day. Have fun with your new buttons. ceradon (talk • edits) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry it took so long to close your RfA. Some important issues have arisen during the course of the RfA and I'd like to explore them to see if we can establish consensus on them. Please keep an eye out for the discussion. It'll be advertised at BN, the Cratchat talk and at Talk:RfA. In the meantime, congratulations on a successful RfA, but I hope you don't mind if I wish that the more significant legacy to Wikipedia will be improved RfX. --Dweller (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, it's better to have a thoughtful discussion regarding adminship than a rush to close. I really appreciate the care and attention this RfA received from bureaucrats especially considering the lively conversations going on on the 'crat chat talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet more congratulations

Looks like the struggle session is finally over - welcome to the world of adminship. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All I can say at this point, Yunshui, is that it was probably the longest 9 days of my life! You were right to advise me to take a day off there on the weekend so I could return on Sunday and face the last minute questions. Thank you for your support through this all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

Your new t-shirt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your RfA Liz! It was definitely one of the toughest I've seen for a while. If you need any help/advice/guidance please do let me know, I'm happy to help as always. And...I see no one has properly attired you yet, so this is for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. When you get bored of hunting for the right block message, some nice person put some code into my monobook that gives you a dropdown menu - I heartily reccommend using it yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You won't believe this, Callanecc, but after I read that I passed, I scrolled down the page, looking for the t-shirt! You were immensely helpful to me when I started editing and had questions about the arbitration process so I might take you up on your offer.

WereSpielChequers, that code would be very helpful, I might visit your monobook page. I'm not going to leap into admin activity but I do want to explore the tools so that when they are needed, I am familiar with them. Right now, I have only figured out how to view deleted content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha, oh yes finding all of the new buttons is one of the best things about being a new admin. Speaking of scripts I've got a bunch in my .js page which might be useful (including the one WSC suggested). This one is really helpful as a general tool! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• +1 Congratulations! That was a nail-biter. There's a backlog at SPI... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Congrats Liz, and apologies again for the pre-RfA suggestion to run, I feel bad for being partly responsible for putting you through all that ridiculousness. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pile-on congrats from me! The only thing giving me pause was figuring out where on this page I should say it. What you just went through, I wouldn't wish on anybody. But what I do wish for you now is a happy Wikipedia experience going forward! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't figure out which section to put this so this seemed as good any. I am after all arriving late to the party. I've always thought you were a good editor and my only regret was that I couldn't have supported you more in what was seemingly one of the most dramatic and intense RFAs I've ever seen. I'm so sorry you had to go through such an ordeal. I hope the experience hasn't dissuaded you from your love or commitment to the project, or if it has that you are able to find the time to fall back in love with it. All the best, Mkdw^talk 12:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wow! what a stressful experience! I hope this kitten helps.

Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't think that a tiny photo of a kitten would help but it totally does, Guy! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Another RfA section

Hi Liz. I'm pleased to see the RfA has finally finished and that you are now an administrator. You know as well as I that it was a close call and when it comes down to it, most of the oppose votes were legitimate issues raised. So many editors I respect ended up in that column, I really don't them all to be telling me "I told you so". Don't let me down, Liz, be the excellent admin I know you can be. Also, now that the RfA is over, have you considered being open to recall? My method is available to pinch if you'd like - I wish more admins were open to something like it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a nailbiter, Dave, and I turned off my laptop and went to bed early last night so I woke up to see the result. By Tuesday morning, I was at peace with either passing or not passing. I don't want to let anyone down and, to that end, I'm going to follow my answer to question #1 and ease into admin activity slowly and cautiously. There is a lot to learn.

I was actually going to cite your recall page as one I would model my own on but the question on recall, surprisingly, didn't come up. Now that I have some distance, it's interesting to me that areas that I thought would be concerns--like admin recall or subjects like files and templates where I don't have experience--weren't a hurdle, while other areas--like a sarcastic talk page comment or a statement made on an SPI two years ago--ended up influencing some editors' votes. I would hesitate to give any prospective candidates advice on what to expect in an RfA.

By the end, I wasn't sure if I would thank you for the strong push you made for me to launch an RfA. But if questions were raised or debate started on different aspects of the RfA process that might lead to improvement, I think it was worth going through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As I was an ANI regular before my RFA, mine was also bit of a nail biter, and not at all what I thought it would be, so I understand some of how you feel. And again, I invite you to engage with those that opposed in good faith like myself, as there is a lot to be gained by it. Overwhelmingly, those that opposed did so because of concerns about experience in the right areas, not because we questioned your character or intent. It took me months to fully shake off the experience, but I think it made me a stronger person for the experience. But the Crats made a logical choice, there is no remorse for the vote nor is there anguish over the outcome. I do find you agreeable, Liz, and I'm hopeful you will be a shining example of adminship in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm just going to pipe in here and agree fully with WTT's comments. It's good to have another administrator on board, and I'll suggest that you take your time and not plunge into difficult or challenging situations too quickly; consider learning how and when to use the admin buttons as the Wikipedia equivalent of learning to drive a car - figure out how the acceleration and braking works before you worry about the stunt driving. I confess I'm not nearly as available as many others to provide information and direct support during your learning period, but I do encourage you to take advantage of the offers you've received. Best wishes, Liz. Risker (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

my RfA opposition

Not to be mean, but I opposed your RfA because I am not comfortable with your attraction to the drama boards, especially because I've seen you exercise some bad judgment and snap assumptions. Even my own case, you said I'd continue to be a problem and would be back at ANI...I haven't been. And much to the opposite of your assumption...haven't interacted with the user (Winkelvi) who was a problem.. a problem as evinced by his being brought back to ANI subsequently for like the 6th or 7th time and being blocked (insufficiently, imho) for the same behaviour with others that lead to our dustup. Now, as another negative, the overreaction just kept me from offering what could have been a significant improvement to an article that hasnt improved since the dustup--an action that has essentially stifled content improvement. No one cared about what was really important...the content. So I guess we don't get them right all the time. Your assumptions however left a very bitter taste in my mouth about administrator wannabes. I do however wish you luck. I hope you take something from the opposition comments and learn from it. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I said something that changed your editing habits, JackTheVicar, but I can't recall this incident. It's hard for me to believe I said you were a problem and would keep coming back to ANI but if you searched through my edit history, you might be able to dig up a relevant diff. I used to spend a lot of time at ANI not because I was an admin wannabe but because my graduate work involved dispute resolution and I was interested in seeing how conflicts get resolved on Wikipedia. It's also why I've been interested in arbitration, not because I ever want to be an arbitrator, I'm just interested in seeing how a committee can address disputes in an organization almost entirely composed of volunteers.

I know it does no good at this point, but I would say it's a mistake to let any editor's words ruin your enjoyment of editing here. In collaborative editing projects, it's inevitable that there is conflict, I know I've bumped heads with other editors. But what is important are the contributions each person makes. And if I had anything to do with you not improving an article, I'd like to apologize to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• • It was your comment dated "12:05, 5 June 2015" and its in the ANI archive. Your rush to judgment and assuming my character were offensive. The apology isn't accepted, because it doesn't change anything. I had to serve an overkill 3 week block because, you, and others chose to let one user slide despite his repeated editwarring, who had been to ANI a half dozen times over a user (me) dealing with him (others complained if his behaviour, so my complaints weren't alone) with no disciplinary history. That shows a lack of perspective, a lack of seeing the bigger picture, that I hope you work on. In the meantime, I still have bitter feelings over the incident...and it does stymie my desire to contribute in certain areas where improvement is sorely needed only because of falling victim to the drive-by shootings of bad judgment and quick assumptions of people like you who show up to add their two cents without getting into the greater issues and thinking they are doing good. Just learn from it is all I ask. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Unblock of JackTheVicar. Given the number of editors and admins who participated in that thread, I think you are overstating the importance of my comment (which was a Comment, not an Oppose Unblock). I didn't say you'd be back at ANI, I said Despite promises, the parties usually can't seem to ignore each other. As long as JtV views Winkelvi as the truly guilty party, I predict that there will be future interaction between the two editors.

While I think the comment I made was valid, I apologized for any negative effect it had on your time on Wikipedia. But since you won't accept my apology, I don't know what else there is for me to say in response to your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

while I concede your comment wasn't important in the scheme of things, it nonetheless became relevant given doubts that your reaction created and which given your penchant for ANI and other drama boards I continue to harbour about your suitability, hence my vote at RfA. When other people in that conversation who acted more or less the same come up for RfA I'll voice my dissent if they haven't grown from it. I see a few admin wannabes in that discussion who lack the temperament for the bits--at least you are a little more polite than they were. As Winkelvi has decided to wikistalk me here somehow out of the blue, despite no tagging him or provoking his appearance, I'll no longer be commenting or replying here lest it be seen as interaction (as I haven't been near him since that ANI) or give into his baiting. The only way I'll review and accept your apology, graciously posited above, is when I see if you've grown from my comments in opposition and those of others who had doubts at RfA. Actions, however innocuous in appearance, have consequences...and in Wikipedia even a polite rush to judgment causes bitterness. Like the encyclopaedia, with a little work we improve. So. Gauntlet thrown, prove my doubts wrong. Go get 'em. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz's talk page is on my watchlist. There is no stalking involved. You mentioned my name, further attempted to sully my reputation, and I don't have the right to comment? Au contraire. Mentioning me at all (and continuing to do so) very well could be seen as "interaction". Depends on the admin who sees this entire talk section, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Two months later; I see JackTheVicar hasn't dropped the stick yet and is still blaming others for his block. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• @JackTheVicar: - you were right in your incination to disengage from this thread once WV showed up, although since WV quite reasonably has Liz's talk page on their watchlist (as do I,) you were wrong to describe it as wikistalking. You also exercised rather poor judgment in editing your initial comment, after it had been made, in a way that easily reads to a reasonable person as as an attempt to inflame the situation further. In any incidental interaction with WV, it would be a very wise decision to refrain from language that can be construed as WP:BAITy - especially after you've recognized a need to disengage. Also, as a point, your block was upheld at full length after a week long ANI review, because your behavior went beyond the pale, including canvassing a bunch of admins off-wiki. You also had options other than serving out your block - I offered to significantly reduce your block length if you indicated you understood why you were blocked in the first place. Instead, you continually minimized your actions and shifted blame to other people. Serving out a three week block was one of multiple options, and was the one you chose.

Also because I've been busy and don't think I've said it yet, congratulations on your RfA Liz :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Was your path to admin a difficult one because you were a woman or were you treated with respect according to your actions and edits? Overall would you think the nomination is akin to Affirmative Action? I do not but I am interested in your opinion on your thoughts on the matter. Just in my experience I have not seen anything that would disqualify you or show you needed special treatment to gain adminship, it's your perceptions I was interested in though as the person that experienced it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(Answering from my perspective)Hell in a Bucket, the issue is that Wikipedia's way of doing things is structured so people who are not part of the major demographic group will have a harder time fitting in. We need to be aware of the research that shows women and men are evaluated differently when they have exactly the same skills and experience. A system like RFA has no guards against subjective biases that cause people to evaluate the candidates differently based on their identity. It is not affirmative action to be aware of these biases when considering if the RFA evaluation process is making it harder to have a roster of administrators with a diverse background. I'm quite concerned that women are expected to be exceptional people with exceptionally strong achievements to move on to positions beyond editor. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What little I've seen showed that women generally fared better at RFA than men, actually. This can't speak to individual circumstances, but it does show that sweeping generalizations aren't particularly useful, nor accurate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean it insultingly to Liz, just asking for her experience as a woman. Many people say there is a problem and some say that it is exceeedingly hard because of it. I am curious to her preception of the experience. Firsthand experiences from reasonable people help change perceptions of problems and how big they are. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, My concern is that too many of the women who come forward as candidates do so well because they don't agree to being nominated until they have a very very strong record of doing remarkable work. This makes it harder for other women (or other men, too) who are regular good editors to pass. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been covered at Wikipedia Editor Retention. Three female admin came from the Editor of the Week program there (Anna Frodesiak, Anne Delong and MelanieN), in about one year, so there are some of us actively looking for women to nominate. Nominees are picked by any editor, not WER members in particular. It is a good way to actually get involved in the solution and has a track record of getting results because it starts with locating women (and men) who are great contributors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Hell in a Bucket, I'm not used to seeing your name in any other color but red!

I agree with FloNight in that there is no way I would have self-nominated and I only launched an RfA as a candidate because I received three email messages from three administrators over two weeks in June, suggesting that I try and offering to nominate me. I had occasionally received encouragement to try over the past two years but this just seemed like serendipity. Plus, WTT/Dave wouldn't take "no" for an answer! Seriously, he wouldn't. But even having three strong and supportive nominators didn't influence the RfA outcome as much as I thought it would.

As far as whether I was treated differently than a man, that is hard to say because I can't have an RfA redo with a male username. I will say that I was struck by how some of the critical comments were very personal, about me as a person, my faults and why I was unsuitable. I've participated in over a dozen RfAs and probably read over two dozen more in preparing for this RfA and it's not typical that voters get that personal. It has happened in the past if an editor is seen to have a temper and fights with other editors. But that wasn't my problem. I was seen by some voters as naive, meddling, drawn to conflict and sarcastic. These are judgments about my personality, qualities that seemed to some voters to be unfixable.

And I think this happens to more often to women than men. I was once told by an employer that I was bad at my job because I made him feel "uneasy", that he felt tension when I was around. This had nothing to do with my job performance, which was fine, it happened right after I stopped laughing at his awful jokes in the breakroom. Because I didn't care about making him comfortable, there was something wrong with me. And he didn't tell me what he wanted me to change, how I could improve. Most of my coworkers were men and they weren't expected to make the boss feel good about himself. This is what sociologists call "emotional labor" and it is frequently a part of stereotypical female occupations (nurses, teachers, stewardesses, etc.). One is not judged by one's skills but how you make other people feel. That is part of the gendered nature of the modern workplace and the situation is more subtle and complex than simply saying something is "sexist" or not.

I'm not sure how much this answers your question, HiaB. I find it most useful to talk about gender in terms of cultural expectations and not how specific women or men relate to each other. There are an enormous number of factors that impact human relationships and reducing everything to gender is reductionistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I appreciate that you shared your view. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Off to the beach ...

Right now I would suggest Liz do something fun and celebrate (like going to the beach for a few days!) I see no reason for this person to relive her recent experience to satisfy other people's curiosity about what it was like. Hazing and struggle sessions are unpleasant for everyone, regardless of gender. I'm sure Liz will offer her opinions on the topics under discussion at such time she feels it is appropriate. Djembayz (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Djembayz Forgive me if I completely ignore that as I did not ask for your permission or require your approval for asking. On a side note if you want a problem to be examined and ultimately fixed it requires uncomfortable questions so the truth however uncomfortable can be shown. If you truly do not want an environment with a gender gap then let the process play out rather then try and hinder and protect when neither is or was needed in the first place. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Djembayz. It's been a very long week and a half and it felt like I didn't exhale during that entire time. I really question whether RfAs need to be 7 days, it's a long time to be on the hot seat. Maybe 3 or 5 days is sufficient, that would be my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

With different people working different patterns of days, seven days gives most people a chance to see the RfA. BTW if you haven't got the admin dashboard yet, help yourself to a copy of my User:Peridon/links page. The top part is the dashboard, the bottom bit is an eclectic lot of links (some of which I don't now understand) which can be tailored by you to fit your needs. Good luck. Taking your first steps with the mop is a bit like the first time you drove a car with no-one there but you inside the car, and thousands of idiots outside all going different ways... Peridon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW 2 The sparrowhawk that visits my garden comes for woodpigeons or collared doves, and must be a female as the male couldn't carry one off. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen over this RFA, being female makes it much harder to pass since males (like myself) don't have the MRAtards / redpillers opposing you because you're a woman. Also, the level of scrutiny of Liz's "interactions" with other editors was appalling. I've been significantly more sarcastic significantly more commonly and not one person opposed my RFA for it. (I think one person opposed my checkuser appointment over sarcasm concerns.) It's a well-known fact that men will scrutinize women significantly more on their personality than they will other men. Seeing it in action in this RFA was abhorrent. Good luck with the mop, Liz, and ignore the people whining that you're "too rude". Half of them wouldn't know "rude" if it hit them in the face. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I have never voted in an admin election, as until two days ago I had never seen a name I recognised among those proposed. So I was disappointed that when I saw a name I did recognise as a very competent conciliator, I had missed the boat. Anyway, the outcome was clearly the correct one! Maproom (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the broom cupboard! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

Congratulations on the outcome, Liz, I was especially pleased to see that the bureaucrat discussion directly addressed a spiking rash/fever of opposes midway which seemed clear evidence of some caucusing/campaigning/rabblerousing going on behind the scenes attempting to muck up the process. – Athaenara ✉ 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Many congratulations both for a successful RfA and especially for the grace with which you handled the RfA itself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC))

I'd also like to add my congratulations. I supported you and I"m glad in the end it worked out. If you have questions as you're trying to learn, please feel free to ask. Welcome! AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A belated thank you, Maproom, Rich, Athaenara, Littleolive oil and AliveFreeHappy, for your good wishes. I was shocked at how contentious the RfA was because I don't think of myself as a controversial person. I'm left with a lot of mixed feelings about the experience but I am grateful for the support I received before, during and after the process. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you had a cookie yet?

Now that that's over, have a cookie! Oh, and congrats. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Num num! I think I need a plateful, Etamni! Thanks for the munchies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Well done!

Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

One can't have too many virtual kittens, Doug! No smell, no mess, just cuteness! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A few shameless plugs

Hi Liz, congratulations on the RfA. As several others have said, you're due a bit of a respite now and I know you said that you plan to ease into admin activity slowly and cautiously which is a wise decision. So no pressure at all here (seriously), but I thought there might be a chance that you would be interested in trying to mollify those from the lack-of-content-creation oppose camp by creating/improving a few articles, and if so I wanted to offer you a few suggestions:

• WP:REQUEST - Articles that have been requested by others. Not all of them meet the minimum standard of inclusion, but if you enjoy a good research challenge then these may appeal to you. These requests represent one very easy way for we editors to respond directly to the readership.
• WP:MISSING - A WikiProject devoted to listing notable topics that are covered by other serious encyclopedias and reference works and that are missing from Wikipedia. If your strengths lie more in collating and summarizing a plenitude of reliable sources then this may appeal to you.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red lists (scientists, writers, etc.) - Lists of Wikipedia articles on notable women that need to be created or expanded. There is no particular reason to recommend these specific lists over the lists from either of the above two bullet points except that it's a good way to address the concerns of the good faith lack-of-content-creation opposers (who would presumably be happy to see content creation on any topic) without feeling like you're capitulating to the demands of bad faith lack-of-content-creation opposers (whose blood pressures might rise to see you advancing GGTF goals).

Again, no pressure. You had my support even with your current level of content creation. But if you are looking for a content creation project those are some good starting places. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

When you edited as an IP, and having a content creation mindset

Hey, Liz. With regard to your WP:RfA and you now being a WP:Administrator, I've been thinking about when we first met (at least I think it's when we first met) two years ago. It makes me think of how fast time flies by, and how I never thought that the IP I was talking to about Wikipedia's biography category policy (WP:BLPCAT) would be a WP:Administrator someday. Since you were editing as an IP at the time, and have removed your IP account from your user page, I won't point to the discussion where we first met...unless you want me to. But, anyway, looking at your contributions from that time, you seemed very much interested in content creation. You were interested in sociology and sexology/sexual topics (including LGBT topics), and other topics, and would commonly post to the article talk pages about improving these articles. You also sometimes edited such articles to improve them. I'm not sure why you moved away from editing/commenting on those topics, but, in my opinion, you don't necessarily lack a content creation mindset. If you ever do dive back into editing such articles, I can point you to some topics that need, or might need, a woman's perspective; for example, Talk:Mons pubis#Which image to use?. I'm currently the only woman commenting there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do remember crossing paths with you, Flyer22...I think we bumped heads! But I soon saw how experienced you were and that you had such good judgment. I have no expertise in sexology subjects but I'll check into that article and see if there is anything I can contribute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. Yes, I know we remember that we bumped heads; as you know, I briefly noted in your WP:RfA (in the Neutral section) that we did, and that we also moved to being on better terms with each other. But above, I was talking about the first time we met; you commented once and I commented twice (the second time was an update), and there was nothing heated about the commentary. It was a decent first meeting. Anyway, I was simply thinking about the way you used to edit, and that you might be interested in getting back to that style. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

note

even though I would have opposed .. I congratulate you. Best of luck with the new buttons. — Ched :  ?  01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though I did oppose and additionally think your intervention on my talk page was probably not quite appropriate, it would be amiss of me not to wish you a fast recovery from the suspense and a successful, not too steep learning curve now you have the tools. Good luck! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the good luck, it's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! (and a barnstar)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		My goodness, Liz, congratulations! I don't know how I missed the outcome of the cratchat, because I had been following it blow-by-blow for several hours, but I just went to check RFA and saw you were successful. This is great! As I've said on several emails, it's an honor working with you on the clerk team. You've held me "in check" a few times when I was a bit over-eager to take action, and your ideas and suggestions are always valuable. Goodness, it's going to be weird seeing your name highlighted in blue in discussions and notices now. And darn, that just leaves two non-admin clerks - I'm kind of feeling left out now... Once again, congrats! Have a great day, and get ready for (what I hear are) the horrors of ADMINACCT! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, L235. They are kind and generous words. Yes, there was a bit of friction when I started as a clerk but I'm glad that time and focusing on the work has smoothed things out and that I have good working relationships with all of my fellow clerks.
I look forward to working on another case with you in the future. And, I'm really glad you had an opportunity to take such an awesome trip this summer. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #170

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

• Discussions
  • Successful request for oversight rights: Sjoerddebruin
• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Wikimedia UK is organizing a Wikidata training session. You can sign up here.
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Talk pages on Wikidata can now be converted to use Flow. You can request migrating your talk page at d:Wikidata:Flow.
  • Mix-n-Match got a bunch of new catalogs for you to match up with Wikidata. Currently matching is happening at about 500 items per day. Pretty sweet :)
  • @happybirthdayauthors is a new Twitter account posting reading suggestions based on Wikidata data.
  • Arbitrary access is rolling out to a large number of wikis over the next two weeks.
  • Duplicity can help you match up unlinked Wikipedia articles to a Wikidata item.
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Erdős number, worldfootball.net ID, AllMovie artist ID, Teuchos ID, isomeric SMILES, Catalogus Professorum Academiae Groninganae id, Hansard ID
• Development
  • Made some small changes to the style of the edit warning and sitelinks so they are easier to notice and understand
  • Added error messages for Special:GoToLinkedPage and Special:ItemByTitle so you get a useful message in case no result is found
  • The Entity Selector now displays alias in brackets behind label
  • The number of entities loaded via the {{#property:…}} parser function and via Lua will be reported in the “Parser profiling data” (which can be found below a page preview or within the Html of a page)
  • Prepared for next rounds of arbitrary access rollout
  • Investigated growing lag of dispatching of changes to Wikipedia and co. We'll need to investigate further and change things so the lag between an edit on Wikidata and it being send to the Wikipedias and other projects is not too high.
  • Added the property ID to Special:ListProperties
  • Moved two extensions (Wikidata.org and WikimediaBadges) from Github to Gerrit. More will follow.
  • We'd like to drop a database table. Discussion is ongoing.
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 18:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Television

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your new Adminship

I was unaware that you were running otherwise I would have thrown in my vote of support. But you made it without me! Congrats! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob, I appreciate your good wishes! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Congratulations on gaining the tools, Liz.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto - just came across that discussion, and am happy to know you'll have more authority to help, given your comments I've seen in the past. -Darouet (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Darouet. The RfA was quite a grueling experience, much more than I expected. So given that, I'm gently easing into an admin role. I'm sure it will one day become second nature but for now I'm being cautious. Thanks for your confidence though! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm glad to see you passed RfA despite some heated opposition, and I know you'll do great things with your new responsibilities. That looked very stressful, so here's a beer to help you chillax. RO(talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this come with a pitcher, RO? I hate to drink alone. I think it's been months since we crossed paths. I hope you've found some editing projects you enjoy. Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Put it on my tab! Yeah, it's been a while, and I've been pretty busy. Chetro Ketl was recently promoted to FA, so yes; I've found some enjoyable and satisfying projects. Congrats on the promotion and corresponding pay raise ... lol. Hope to see you around! RO^(talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done

If nothing else, you deserve a special barnstar just for sticking with it, that RFA was something to behold. Sometimes I think we've forgotten the purpose of Wikipedia, to expand and enhance an ever-growing tome of knowledge that's free for everyone to see and editable by (mostly) anyone. Sure it has its own crinkles but I had and have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a sterling example of what Wikipedia needs from its admins. Good luck, don't get too embroiled too soon, and remember that every single edit you make and every single admin action you take which improves Wikipedia justifies it all. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, The Rambling Man. Some very wise words, if I may say. I did feel like withdrawing on Friday of the RfA, it felt like I, as a person, was under assault. But I gave myself the weekend off from the fracas...and it's amazing how time away from Wikipedia can enhance ones clarity when one returns. I will try to live up to the trust that was placed in me and always, measure twice (or thrice) and cut once. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay for you!

I'm a little late to congratulate you on your RFA, but here I am!! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received eight long, sordid years ago from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you must ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll, who will threaten to ban you from the Internet for life. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. They're so, so awesome. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KrakatoaKatie 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

Thank you, KrakatoaKatie, this is advice I can use! I am easing slowly into the role of administrator. I appreciate the offer to be on call if I need feedback on an administrative action. As for having people point out all of your errors, after that RfA, I accepted that this would be my lot in life from here on out. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Belated congratulations on your successful run for adminship. Thanks for all of your work to improve English Wikipedia. North America1000 22:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our 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! Wednesday August 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 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) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted

I am approaching you as the clerk for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Everyone, including its creator Kww, agrees that this page now serves no useful purpose, but since it is referred to in FOF3 there is a view that it should be moved to a subpage of the Arbcom case (and the FOF edited to point to its new location). Do you think that is necessary for the record? If so, I will do it; otherwise, I am minded to close the MfD as delete. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

JohnCD, I don't see that any pages other the Kww's page and the MfD discussion that link to this page. I have posed the question on the clerks list to see if anyone has encountered this situation before and has an opinion of whether it should be a subpage. Thanks for asking me and I hope to hear back soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Received and replied, EvergreenFir. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Belated congrats. I just saw your WP:NAS edits in my WL. Regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm easing into the role, Tito Dutta. Have any advice for a newbie? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from July 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in July 2015.

• Konkani Wikipedia goes live
• “Becoming involved in making the changes you want to see”: Leigh Thelmadatter
• Wikidata, coming soon to a menu near you
• Wikimedians urge the EU to protect freedom of panorama
• ACLU files amended complaint on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation
• Get the latest Wikipedia updates easily with IFTTT

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Female saints

Dear Liz, I had pinged you at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_23#Category:Christian_female_saints_from_the_Old_Testament, not sure if you had noticed this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I hadn't noticed your ping, Marcocapelle. Things have been a little hectic. I'll check out the discussion. Sorry for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

• News and notes: Superprotect, one year later; a contentious RfA

• In the media: Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj

• Forum: Community voices on paid editing

• Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015, part 2, a community event

• Traffic report: Fighting from top to bottom

• Featured content: Fused lizards, giant mice, and Scottish demons

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: The Hunt for Tirpitz

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki kitten is here to say you should not get discouraged. Better luck next time (at which point you are welcome to notify me on my talk page about your candidacy; I missed it this time). Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually passed the RfA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. It was quite a grueling experience though. One needs not just a thick skin but a flame retardant one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Want a pleasant job of diplomacy? Close as requested here? Don't recall to have seen a blocking admin giving a barnstar to the blocked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

closed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, can you start a new thread when you leave me a message? I seem to have missed seeing these until now. I'll check out the talk page now even if the matter is closed. Be well, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For a new topic, I will. But "not just a thick skin but a flame retardant one" was exactly what made me think ;) - It all began - harmless I thought - on my talk, Boys will be boys, which proved to be a prediction ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #171

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

• Discussions
  • Reinforcement of data analysis before any modification of the DB
• Events/Blogs/Press
  • cooperation between free content projects
  • A case is made to concentrate our quality efforts on the differences between Wikidata and other sources
  • Ongoing: Several team members are attending the Chaos Communication Camp.
  • Upcoming: SmartDataConference
  • A Comparative Survey of DBpedia, Freebase, OpenCyc, Wikidata, and YAGO
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Wikidata needs your vote! It only takes a minute.
  • WikiProject Sum of all Paintings reached the milestone of 100.000 paintings. Congrats!
  • Arbitrary access is now available on another ~250 Wikipedias].
  • See d:Wikidata talk:Arbitrary access#Use cases: testing modules and templates for two general use cases for arbitrary access on Wikipedia's regression testing of Wikidata-related modules and templates and testing infoboxes with Wikidata content.
  • List of articles on English Wikipedia without a Wikidata item (also works for other projects)
  • You have a bunch of names etc. and want to find Wikidata items with those labels/aliases? Try relabel!
  • SourcererBot is adding lots of references to existing statements on several thousand items.
  • Mix-n-Match has new catalogs including the National Library of Australia.
  • Deaths at Wikipedia are a series of reports comparing items at Wikidata with death-by-year-categories of Wikipedia. For the years since 2000, only about 15% of items at Wikidata lack d:Property:P570 (date of death).
  • 93% of items about people have a gender set now.
  • Want to make both Wikidata and Inventaire better? You can help by finding those books' authors.
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Find A Grave cemetery ID, German cattle breed ID, Erdős number, worldfootball.net ID, AllMovie artist ID
  • Newest tools: Suggestor
• Development
  • Rolled out arbitrary access to about 250 Wikipedias including German, French and Japanese. More to come in a few days.
  • Worked more on quantities. Looks like we'll have it on a demo system for you to try a first version within the next two weeks.
  • Bene* is joining us for a month as an intern. Welcome!
  • References are now hidden while loading the page, speeding up page load time
  • First commit to the ArticlePlaceholder extension
  • Expensive parser functions now count each entity only once
  • Released a new version of the DataModelServices component and started using it
  • Started working on phasing out the wb_entity_per_page table. It will be kept around and updated for some time to allow tool owners to migrate.
  • The Wikibase code base now fullfills all of MediaWiki’s PHPCS coding standards
  • Added property IDs to Special:ListProperties
  • Did a lot of bug triage on Phabricator
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Would you be willing to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the verified oldest people? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks to be done =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your wise words to Glacialfrost. I let the little twerp get to me, I know, but he's got this hall monitor mentality riding on the back of about a week's editing (under this account; I think he's a sock of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, whose editorial patterns were remarkably similar), and a tendency to play Mommy, as I pointed out on his talk page. He's got no business going near Twinkle, and now he's looking to be a reviewer. He'll hang himself eventually, of course. But in the meantime, he needs some serious reigning in. --Drmargi (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I find his swings in reaction (from apology to rage) puzzling unless he is a young editor. I think hearing Yunshui's feedback will help and at least he is open to mentoring which the other similar accounts were not. If there is socking going on, it will become evident soon enough. If there is not, well, he needs to learn how to use automated tools with more care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

He's definitely young. His writing gives that away. It feels like he's playing a game. There's another sock master named Jason, I forget his user name, who gets up to the same nonsense. He's somebody's sock, no question. He's knows too much about non-main space activity for a one week newbie, and he knows how to evade a check user. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

I apologize, I did not mean to contribute to stirring up the nonsense from the RFA, and I won't respond regarding that matter anymore. I was genuinely surprised to see things you said described as expressing "open hostility" and I wanted to know if I had the wrong impression about you, but it's obvious now that it was an empty claim. I didn't think that posing the equivalent of "citation needed" would cause someone to get so ridiculously defensive. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you, Gamaliel. It was clear to me when the 'Crat Chat talk page had over 500 comments in the 36 hours after the RfA closed that only a part of this discussion was about me. There is a bigger debate going on among editors about what kind of administrators they want (or don't want) and my RfA seemed to hit a nerve. It's about more than me but I became a focal point, unfortunately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Following up

Hi Liz, as I mentioned above, I am ready to put this matter behind us. Your response and your subsequent deletion of my reply are an ongoing concern, however. I expected some kind of agreement to move on, but you continued the old pattern by making a baseless aspersion against me. You are free to archive the thread, of course, but I'll no longer permit attacks from you to go unanswered, so I've restored my reply.

Please read WP:Harassment carefully. Earlier I requested an interaction ban, but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern. Since you are on record as one of my harassers, you are involved with regard to any administrative dealings that relate to me.

In a nutshell, my take is that for whatever reason you were willing to extend an unlimited amount good faith toward these sockpuppeteers, but none toward me. If you wish we can continue this conversation and try to better understand what happened, or we can let it drop. Manul ~ talk 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you are on record as one of my harassers...what record is that, Manul? It's not a record that I am familiar with.

And as I have told you from the beginning of this fruitless discussion, you don't need an interaction ban with me because the only time I have had any interactions with you recently is when you have come to my talk page leaving disparaging comments about me. In fact, I went through your entire user talk page history and found out that I posted once on it, on November 28, 2013.‎ One comment on your talk page...21 months ago.

If you don't want to have any interaction with me, the solution is simple: Stop posting here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It is baffling that you don't appear to understand what the issue is, even after Bishonen pointed it out in the RfA. You just archived the thread on your talk page discussing it. Do you really not know? Did I mention I am baffled?

You don't appear to understand the reason I initially requested an interaction ban. An interaction ban prohibits not only direct interactions but also attacks made against the other party in their absence. The latter is the harassment issue at stake here. You don't appear to understand that my above comment "but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern" negates the original request.

You don't appear to understand that I came here last month as a gesture of good will, removing my RfA question[1] and hoping to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, you proceeded to make an aspersion that was reminiscent of your past behavior -- as if no time had passed -- and then deleted my response to it. You don't appear to understand that that was a bad thing to do. You don't appear to understand the difference between raising concerns about your conduct, backed by evidence, and simply "leaving disparaging comments". Equating those is mutually exclusive with being a competent admin.

There doesn't seem to be much hope here, and as I indicated before I would be well satisfied with leaving it behind. But you continued the same problematic behavior. Liz-the-regular-editor is easily ignored, which is what I had been doing -- we had almost no interactions until last month -- but an admin exhibiting these issues is cause for serious concern. The purpose of my last message was (1) to make clear that continuing such behavior (casting baseless aspersions; deleting the follow-up) is unacceptable, and (2) to make sure you understood what WP:INVOLVED entails. I don't know what to expect from you, considering the behavior I've seen, but at least WP:INVOLVED, if followed, should prevent the worst case scenarios.

To soften this a bit, I will say that the situation which started this off was rather unusual. A user had been caught sockpuppeting yet didn't appear to understand that he had been caught. The explanations he offered didn't make sense, and he didn't appear to understand that they didn't make sense. I can imagine admins shaking their heads while reading them.

Not long after his block, the user created an attack website based in part upon the falsehood that he had been wrongly accused of sockpuppeting. His primary target was me, whom he painted as deviously accusing editors of being his sockpuppets as a means of blocking those who shared his point of view. His friend, who had contributed to the attack site, disseminated the story on Wikipedia, bringing the off-wiki harassment on-wiki.

And good grief, it turned out that the friend had also been sockpuppeting, and that the two had been conspiring since soon after the first got blocked. That last SPI shows outright trolling, and an admin there expressed displeasure about the deceptions involved. The two would later collaborate to disrupt the Deepak Chopra article with more socking, and I would be targeted again.

Such dedicated trolling might be unexpected, and one might be forgiven for not catching on right away. But once the evidence has been laid out, refusing to look at it is inexcusable, and then to actually applaud the harassment, even joining in ... well. If I were your employer, I would ask you to attend a seminar on online bullying. Since you're not (presumably), I can only implore you to carefully read WP:Harassment. This background should bring more clarity to my RfA question and the talk page thread you deleted. Best, Manul ~ talk 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

• Op-ed: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus

• In the media: Politically controversial science; "Wikipedia hates women"

• Featured content: Dead parrots, live frogs, a symbolic kiss and what do we get? Enrique Iglesias!

• Travelogue: Seeing is believing

• Traffic report: Straight Outta Connecticut

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: How Wikipedia responds to breaking news

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I would note for the record

Liz, I find the disciplining of Kww very disheartening (reported here [2], and here [3]), since it captures so many of the injustices built into the WP system of adjudicatory decision-making (even with regard to its Administrators). And that it can happen, so quickly and so thoroughly, to an Admin leaves me shaken to the core about this place.

Extended content

Before unpacking this a bit, I would note that I have twice been disciplined, regarding the same issue, once on each side of the matter—once, because I fought with an editor who mass reverted an edit because as a part of it, I had moved an unsourced BLP section of text, adding tags (because they viewed the move as inserting unsourced text into a BLP article), and in the second case, my misstepping based on the precedent of the first, disciplined for removing a block of misplaced, unsourced text in a BLP article (rather than move and tag it), only to be told I should have moved and tagged it (the matter over which I was chastised in the first case). Hence, in the Rambling v Kww case, I have been on both sides, and have been punished both times—yes, for the way I argued about it (but the root editorial issue was the same, though oppositely adjudicated, each time). With regard to the particulars, the overriding conclusion I draw is based on (a) failing to see what I consider clear evidence of impartiality on the part of those adjudicating, and (b) failing to see clearly established standards to include or exclude perspectives based on the uniform application of principles of fairness. With regard to the first, I refer, as an outsider, to the lack of evidence that those voting had no interest or association with the parties involved, e.g., nowhere being asked to state no cause for recusal. That is to say, as WP gets smaller and smaller, the likelihood that those involved at higher levels will have had prior involvement with one another becomes greater. With involvement comes impressions, biases. Apart from such a clear process of query and recusal, the majority of those voting could, for all one might know, be "friend and family" of one or the other involved in the matter at hand. Without people being queried, there is no basis whatsoever for trusting that the proceedings are completely without bias. On this point, I will asked to be better informed: How were members of those deciding Kww's and Rambling's fate chosen (included, and excluded)? Perhaps I simply need to understand this process better than I do. With regard to the second, failing to see standards, I would note the following. In the same vein of any ADD being able to empanel a grand jury to to "indict a ham sandwich" (Hon. Sol Wachtler), it appears, for lack of clearly codified rules of procedure, that it is possible to construct a charge that will result in a predisposition of a seated group of admins to harshly discipline the accused. I say this because the list of charges were a very mixed bag, and seemed to include accusations that should either have either omitted outright, or adjudicated separately. For instance, for one of the overarching conclusions of the proceeding to be that "the community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters" makes clear that—since a formal admission is made that such guidance allowed for latitude, and that latitude contributed to one of the negative findings—by any fair standard one has to acknowledge that the finding that "Kww... misused edit filters" stands on far shakier ground that its vote seems to indicate. The fact that a group can agree how someone should act, absent clear guidelines, does not mean that someone acting otherwise is at fault, because it is the existence of clear guidelines that allows one to clearly find fault (not the opinion of a majority on an unclearly codified matter). Here, it seems that Kww was guilty, mostly, of either bad judgment, or simply not thinking like the pack (rather than guilty of not following a clearly established rule). If this is so, in a real proceeding, having such a matter improperly included might result in the whole of the set of charges being reversed (for the bias it introduces into the proceedings). As troubling is the fact that technical bias appears to have crept into the process at key stages—something that I have seen repeatedly at WP, as a non-technocrat, just a subject matter expert: the fact that individuals add emotion and bias to decisions involving those doing technical things less proficiently than they might have done. (In this case, I am referring to the analysis performed by User:Dragons flight which is littered with "technically deficient design" annotations, regarding Kww's edit tools.) There are reasons why in fair proceedings, counsel for one side can say "I object", leading to evidence being thrown out, and statements being inadmissible. In this "sausage making" people were allowed to say anything and everything, in my book, calling into question the fundamental validity of the fairness of the whole of the process, and so the outcome. As well, the connection (and so importance, and clear admissibility) of a previous infraction "quickly reversed by the community as a bad block" seems to be questionable, and something that was allowed unnecessarily to introduce bias into the matter. Finally, the true foundation of what might have been a tightly proscribed, clear case—that Kww was involved in a content dispute in which he had a longstanding interest, and then misused his Admin powers toward personal editorial ends—this foundation of Kww's interest in the articles in question, is simply not established at all. Perhaps I have missed a segment of the record of the proceedings, but from what I have seen, nowhere in the arguing—and perhaps this is Kww's failure to self-represent—does there appear the crucial question and answer of this matter: Had Kww prior involvement in the articles/lists in question, and if any prior involvement, were those involvements editorial or administrative? If no clear history or histories of involvement were found at the articles (or at least no editorial history, only administrative actions), then Kww's defense that he was acting administratively at the time in question sounds very solid to me. Did he or did he not have a personal editorial interest in the two articles in question? If he did, then perhaps all the rest of his arguments, about period of applicable time after of death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and other defenses, may amount to so much smoke. But if the evidence supports he had no standing interest, and that he came on purely as an administrator, then in every Admin v Editor action I have observed being decided, one arriving as an Admin is acting as an Admin, from start to finish. I will say, in fact, that there have been situations I have observed of Admins editing at articles, where they have had long histories of interest in the articles, Admins I deeply respect, that have none-the-less been allowed to argue that "In this subset of my series of actions on this day, in this situation, I was acting as an Adminstrator." That is to say, in my experience, the standard to which Kww was held is by no means uniform among administrators, and a standard that is not uniformly applied is both a clear basis for misunderstanding, as well as being a standard that is fundamentally unjust. This apparent overwhelming oversight with regard to fairness—Kww may perhaps be faulted for not having forcibly enough argued the point of his lack of editorial interest, but he did repeatedly make it—further fuels the question of whether the group empaneled to decide was truly impartial. Bottom line, it seems to me as a perpetual WP outsider—not much interested in its how the sausage is made (how the system adjudicates itself)—and as the son of a jurist, an individual that has had to sit on on his fair share of administrative "counsel" actions (in real life), and a widely read and fair-minded individual who always thinks of the rights of the accused (so I have been told), it seems clear to me that this matter was a formal, adjudicatory shambles. The system in force is neither of the English-type (based on uniform application of clearly applicable precedent, impartially determined), nor the French type (based on application of directly applicable codified example, again with impartiality), which brings it much closer to types of systems that are arbitrary, or based in politics (or authoritarian control). I will happily avoid putting myself in any position to have to be judged by such panels, under such ill-formed process. But I would also note that the smaller and smaller we become at WP, and the more invested that remaining individuals are (more than a decade of service by some), the harshness reflected when absolute penalties are imposed, and the personal damage that such penalties do—I do not doubt that at some point someone will be so aggrieved by their mishandling to pursue recourse in other places (where the rules are clear, no biased participants are allowed, and the playing field is certain to be level). In other places, they will have their cases fairly heard, and the damage from being improper handled here will be fairly assessed.

Meanwhile, I will just be sad over the lost dedication of this Admin, and at way things work, disbelieve in the system more fully, and avoid the whole of it more entirely. It is no wonder that so many flee at any hint of conflict, if this is the sort of thing that can happen so quickly, and thoroughly. My view, as an outsider. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Congratulations on becoming an admin! I just saw! Way to go. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

GWW reply

re Special:Diff/677533514, what you describe is not my take on things. Certainly being listed by GWW does not mean you necessarily set that record (perhaps GWW was fooled) or that you hold that record (someone who beat it may be unrecognized by GWW). What it means is that GWW said someone did it, that they set a record according to GWW, to keep in the bounds of WP:V.

I obviously would not include all information on the site, because the vast majority of GWW content is in regard to non-notable individuals who lack Wikipedia articles. I am not creating articles for those people, and thus am not including information about their records.

I am only including information as it pertains to individuals who are already notable, due to having Wikipedia articles.

It is not for you or I to decide on what is or is not important/noteworthy/trivial. Our own personal opinions and values would weigh too heavily on that. If GWW has gone to the bother of honoring it in a book or on a page, then they have established that it is not trivial, they have set it apart. This is why I don't nominate wedding dress of Kate Middleton for deletion. It seems pointless to me, but I recognize it's given prominence by sources.

As for the transitory nature, this is exactly why 'setter' was chosen instead of 'holder'. To aspire to have a 'holder' category builds the problem of having to monitor whether or not the record is broken, which would create too much work. If someone wants to set up a project and subcategory for that, they're welcome to it, but 'setter' is more achievable since then you don't have to remove anyone from the category, you just add them to it as they set records and don't have to worry about if they are surpassed.

Even if a record is surpassed, it is still notable to have been recorded as setting it in the first place, at least if GWW bothers to recognize it and it happened to a noteworthy person. Ranze (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #172

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Past: SmartData conference
  • Paper: Reifying RDF: What Works Well With Wikidata?
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Wikidata made it into the top 10 of the Land der Ideen competition \o/ This means we're part of the final public voting starting on 9th of September. Thanks everyone who voted and spread the word.
  • Flow is being tested on selected talk pages.
  • New tool: Get new Wikidata items (now or before a given timestamp) as HTML or PagePile
  • New tool: Find Wikidata items without an image around a location, then find free images on Flickr taken nearby.
  • EventZoom.net extended with OpenStreetMap support, increasing the options for visualizing historical events from Wikidata.
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Find A Grave cemetery ID, German cattle breed ID, Erdős number, worldfootball.net ID, AllMovie artist ID
• Development
  • Soon the edit summary for edits through the API will also contain the automatic edit summary that you are used to for edits done through the website. The summary given by the API user will be appended to the automatic summary. (phabricator:T97247)
  • Addressed performance issues in usage tracking updates and had to delay the latest round of rollouts because of it
  • Fixed a bug where suggestions would show up twice in item and property selectors (phabricator:T109697)
  • Improved performance of the mw.wikibase.sitelink Lua method
  • More work done on Unit Selector widget
  • Started working on the ArticlePlaceholder extension
  • Made final changes so we can redirect mobile users to the mobile version by default
  • Evaluated the remaining steps to get the extension deployed that lets you do checks against 3rd party databases. Not much left it seems and we'll tackle that in one of the next sprints. Getting the new features deployed for the constraints checks will still take a bit longer.
  • More work on making the edit summaries in the watchlist on Wikipedia and co more meaningful
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 12:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Liz. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail about bracket problem

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

BluecometFlag (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

• In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors

• In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences?

• News and notes: Re-imagining grants

• Featured content: Out to stud, please call later

• Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration

• Recent research: OpenSym 2015 report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Chirag J. Roy

Hi Liz, long time no talk, and congratulations with your tool-set! Chirag J. Roy was unreferenced when Everymorning proposed it for deletion. Since then two sources have been added, both are published by Roy himself on Southeastern Hot Herp Society.[4][5] Do you really find these are "reliable source(s) that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article"? Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sam Sailor. I realize that the two articles were self-authored but I believed they were evidence of the subject being a herpetologist. After seeing your comment here, I looked into the website more thoroughly and it is run by individuals who are interested in snakes but are not herpetologists themselves. The website is more than a blog but I agree that it lacks the sufficiently rigorous editorial oversight to qualify it as a reliable source. Thanks for politely pointing out my mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, Liz. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Removing CSD tag as there is an MfD discussion occurring right now."

Regarding this diff.[6] To my knowledge csd tagging things currently at MfD is allowed (or at least admins don't object most of the time). For example most of the pages on my CSD log are things I spotted at MfD and decided to csd tag to speed up the process. Brustopher (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen an article or page that is involved in an ongoing deletion discussion also tagged for speedy deletion. I would think that the deletion discussion would have priority. That said, if you are familiar with this situation occurring and want to reapply the CSD tag to this page, I wouldn't remove it and will see how other admins treat this situation. If I'm mistaken, you can tell me, "I told you so!". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's mostly because MfD trudges along at a snail's pace and no one ever !votes on anything. Sometimes its useful to just csd tag something if its an obvious delete case. However, it's just hit me that this page probably can't be deleted under g3 because it's not really and obvious hoax, and I suddenly feel like quite a fool (If you'd like, you can be the one to say "I told you so"). There's probably no reason for me to restore the csd tag, although I wish it could be IAR speedy deleted for system gaming. But in general I still stand by csd tagging during MfDs as being a good thing. Brustopher (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Brustopher, I didn't think it was a G3 but it could fall under G4. I'm cautious about CSD tagging right now as I've had some tags I've placed on articles removed and been corrected in the past for being quick to tag an article that other editors thought should be nominated for AfD.

As for MfD, you are probably right that it could use more editor help there but considering that discussions at CfD can go on for months before they are closed, MfD looks almost speedy by comparison! Given that this is the second time this article has been to MfD, the discussion might be closed fairly quickly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I tend to stay away from CfD, because I can't for the life of me understand what falls under WP:CATDEF. On the other hand I think MfD gets few comments simply because of how boring it is most of the time. The discussions are a lot simpler so csd opportunities come up a lot more. Also worth noting that there are far fewer csd criteria that could realistically apply to a category. I guess you might be right about G4 being valid in an WP:IAR sort of way. I think I'm going to risk it and tag it.Brustopher (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #173

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

• Discussions
  • New request for comments: Merging relationship properties
• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Removing use of Mediawiki’s API ‘rawmode’ in Wikibase
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • New page: Wikidata:OpenStreetMap to facilitate cooperation with our colleagues at OpenStreetMap
  • Inventaire now shows links to ProjectGutenberg ebooks based on Wikidata data (example)
  • First version of units is ready for testing
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: ResearchGate ID, GitHub username, African Plant Database, LinkedIn personal profile, Project Gutenberg ebook ID, Category for pictures taken with camera, work period end, work period start, NASA biographical ID, Dictionary of Ulster Biography ID, United States Armed Forces service number, Colour Index International constitution ID, Avibase ID
  • Newest WikiProjects: Reasoning
  • Newest gadgets: List of missing pairs queries, DuplicateReferences
  • Newest External tools: Commons:Database reports/Cameras
• Development
  • Lucie posted a sneak-peek of her work on the article placeholder extension
  • Optimized Wikidata for viewing on mobile devices. You will be redirected to m.wikidata.org automatically when using a mobile device soon the same way it already happens on Wikipedia. (Editing will only be possible via the special pages!)
  • Started working on a page to track how much Wikidata's data is used on each Wikimedia project
  • API breaking change coming soon
  • API custom summary will no longer override the autocomment (phabricator:T97247)
  • Paging and sorting has been added to Special:ListProperties and it now also shows the IDs of the properties
  • Worked more on making the edit summaries on the client more meaningful and readable
  • Introduced a limit of 250 different entities that can be used on a page in the client via arbitrary access. The limit does not apply to convenience functions in lua, such as mw.wikibase.label which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (phabricator:T93885)
  • Properties are now linked in the diff view (phabricator:T105411)
  • Ricordisamoa made several improvements to special pages (eg phabricator:T68744, phabricator:T48248, phabricator:T86647)
  • Fixed a bug that made aliases too prominent in entity selectors (phabricator:T110021)
  • Fixed a bug that made entries show up twice in the entity selector (phabricator:T109697)
  • Started working on a special page to list all pages on a wiki with a certain badge
  • Fixed remaining blockers for first rollout of unit support
  • Bene worked on a new feature for DuckDuckGo to show instant results from Wikidata on their site
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Corbyn (name)

Hi Liz, can you restore the deleted talk page pls? If I remember correctly there was a redirect from one talk to another which may have caused the wrong talk to be deleted? Regards Widefox; talk 07:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

yup, and delete Talk:Corbyn (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it turns out I deleted the destination of a redirect page instead of the redirect page itself. Thanks for bringing my attention to this, Widefox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

• Sweden: The benefits of teaching with Wikipedia broadcasted on Swedish National Radio
• Mexico: Summer term ends with great success and Fall begins at Tec de Monterrey
• Newsletter: On its third birthday, a retrospective of This Month In Education and proposed changes to the publication process
• Newsletter: Call for volunteers - This Month In Education
• Media: Articles of interest in other publications: Israel, Mexico and Australia

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Wikiproject Wikipedia

Thank you for moving the pages back to the original title. However, now my recent csd requests per WP:G8 appear inappropriate at first glance, because the pages now exist again (albeit with different content entirely). Mind mopping up (deleting) at least the subpage ones, to spare whomever views the speedy deletion requests the confusion.

Just noticed you already did this while I was in the process of typing. Thanks!

I'm not sure if the templates fall under the same criteria, but I've nominated them as well (some of them under multiple criteria). [7] Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Godsy, I've adapted the rationale for deletion to indicate that the G8 applied to a different deleted WikiProject page. I'll look at the templates but I think this is an effort that has to be reconsidered from scratch as WikiProjects are a group project, not a hierarchy with founders. I left the Members talk page as there was substantial discussion going on that could be moved to a new WikiProject with a different name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I had concerns related to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Community and WP:OWN when I noticed the project via the templates created the other day. I didn't even realize there were other issues, such as the usurpation of a name held by another WikiProject, at the time. Thanks again,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I just came across so many WikiProject Improving Wikipedia subpages and talk pages, Godsy, the editors even renamed categories rather than going through the WP:CFD process (and there are warning signs not to do so!). This will take time to clean up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hola

I left you a message on ANI, Tortle (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for handling the mess resulting from the unilateral new WikiProject Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me revert the seemingly endless edits resulting from my mistake and for handling the situation fairly. Tortle (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

• Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Flow placed on ice

• Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

• Featured content: Brawny

• In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

• Traffic report: You didn't miss much

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #174

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Wikimedia Grafana graphs of Wikidata profiling information
  • Past: Wikimedia Science Conference (blog posts: Liberating Science Daily With, and To, Wikidata, Wikidata, Wikipedia, and #wikisci)
  • Past: Wikidata workshop in Rennes
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • New date for the next Arbitrary access rollout has been set: 16th of September.
  • Support for units on Wikidata is coming on Wednesday (9th of September).
  • A new version of Kian has been released
  • The Wikidata Game has got a new mode: Books without author.
  • A new IEG proposal needs your review and support. You can also submit your own until the 29th of September.
  • >8K Fellows of the Royal Society have been added to mix’n’match
  • You can have a look at the spiffy new mobile view
  • Want to work with the data in Wikidata? There is a new release of the Wikidata Toolkit for you.
  • Your help is needed with the most important constraint violations.
  • A new noticeboard has been created to help with classification issues: d:Wikidata:Classification noticeboard
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Artsy artist, National Gallery of Victoria artist identifier, CITES Species+ ID
• Development
  • Worked on search on the mobile site
  • Started working on automatically linking identifiers without a gadget and the new datatype for identifiers
  • We have a new Special page to query badges (finally!) After the next update it will be at Special:PagesWithBadges on Wikipedia and others
  • Fixed some of the remaining known issues with unit support to make it ready for rollout on Wednesday
  • Continued with making it possible to show meaningful edit summaries in the watchlist and recent changes on Wikipedia and others
  • Made change dispatching faster (This is what makes Wikipedia and others aware of changes happening on Wikidata)
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

September 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday September 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We 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/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday September 16 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 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) 15:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons: September 20 - Afrocrowd Wikipedia editathon @ Queens Library October 3 - WikiArte Latin America editathon @ MoMA October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

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

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.

• Hundreds of “black hat” English Wikipedia accounts blocked following investigation
• The Hunt for Tirpitz
• My life as an autistic Wikipedian
• Content Translation updates from Wikimania 2015
• Using Wikipedia to preserve indigenous languages of Colombia
• When cultural heritage gets a digital life

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

• Gallery: Being Welsh

• Featured content: Killed by flying debris

• Op-ed: DYK, or proudly displaying incorrect information on the Main Page with alarming regularity

• News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article

• Traffic report: Mass media production traffic

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Wikipedia editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #175

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Past: Wikidata edit-a-thon at Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015 in Estonia
  • Upcoming: Office hour on IRC, 23 September
  • Upcoming: Mobilizing Open Cultural Data, Helsinki, 2 October
  • Upcoming: Wikidata tutorial at SWAT4LS, December
  • Un-deleting 500,000 Wikidata items
  • Wikimania 2015 report by Multichill
  • DSS Wikidata Editathon
  • A simple way to write Wikidata bots
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Please vote for Wikidata to win the people's choice award of Land der Ideen (voting instructions)
  • We passed 70M statements.
  • Stalagmites and stalactites visualizes items without statements, items with statements, and deleted/redirected items by batches of 100,000 QIDs
  • Mix n Match is now available for mobile, has an improved automatic matching algorithm, got speed improvements and new catalogs were added like the National Gallery of Victoria, World Heritage Sites and CulturaItalia
  • The annual Wikipedia editing competition organized by the International Society for Computational Biology will include a Wikidata component this year for the first time.
  • Matched birth and death days seeks to investigate all pairs of humans (in various subsets) that appear to have the same birth dates and death dates. De-duplication underway!
  • You can now use the new special page Special:PagesWithBadges to see which articles on that project have a badge like "featured article".
  • New tool by Magnus to suggest links to Wikidata items while you type
  • Meta, MediaWiki, Wikispecies and Wikibooks will get (more) access to Wikidata soon
  • Wikidata now has an official SPARQL endpoint so you can query the data
    • announcement
    • examples
    • How US Presidents Died According to Wikidata
  • Wikidata now supports units
    • announcement
    • properties with units already created
    • Properties with units waiting for creation
    • example
  • Prototype database to store all Wikipedia references
  • Duplicity can show you how many (and which) articles on a Wikipedia are not connected to an item on Wikidata (example for frwp)
  • Magnus wrote a user script to let you edit Listeria-powered lists on Wikipedia directly
  • Musicpedia has been released in beta and is using data from Wikidata
  • New tool by Magnus to create a Commons creator page from a Wikidata item
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: length, elevation above sea level, orbital inclination, area, duration, height, width, wingspan, M x sin i, speed, watershed area, density, electrical conductivity, heat capacity, HMDB ID, depositor, luminosity, aspect ratio, HSDB ID, LIPID MAPS ID, KNApSAcK ID, NIAID ChemDB ID, Fusion enthalpy, mass
• Development
  • Release of the query service and unit support (see above)
  • Made quantities not show URIs when editing a value but instead show the label
  • Worked on new datatype for identifiers to be able to split them from the other statements in the user interface, link them without the need for the authority control gadget and be able to link them in JSON/RDF
  • Worked more on making the edit summaries in the watchlist on Wikipedia and co more meaningful
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.

• Hundreds of “black hat” English Wikipedia accounts blocked following investigation
• The Hunt for Tirpitz
• My life as an autistic Wikipedian
• Content Translation updates from Wikimania 2015
• Using Wikipedia to preserve indigenous languages of Colombia
• When cultural heritage gets a digital life

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

MontanaBW RfA

Traditionally, comments and questions to other voters have been placed under their votes. Such questions do not belong on a talk page either, in my view, since they are in my case at least pretty simple queries rather than discussion points. Since this isn't an arbitration voters do not have sections and cmts generally need not or have not been placed under the commenter's vote. RfAs do need oversight by neutral minded admins. but questions which are disruptive must also be dealt with or they can derail an RfA. I'm not sure where such cmts should be placed. Just thinking out loud, I guess, and would like to see RfAs become more user friendly and less blood bath.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, I agree with your last point. But I also think that questions and comments can seem intrusive but are still valid. RfAs exist on a fine line between investigation and critique on one side and chastising, insults and slights on the other hand. Even as a participant, I could see that it is difficult to speak to the specifics of an editor's qualifications and experience without it seeming like a personal attack. I think credit should be given to those who can be civil in both their objections to the candidate and their defense to other's objections to their positions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. Nothing though, either of us has said addresses where cmts are placed so they are least disruptive to the process, and how to oversee an RfA. An issue is always that when one has concerns either with a candidate or other voter how does one lay that out so that the issues, sometimes experienced over the multiple dimensionality of years of behaviour be explained in a few type written words on a two dimensional computer screen. Thus, the big wrangles develop. Intrusion is fine and necessary actually, but such intrusions must be based on real issues supported by diffs that illustrate the issues or an RfA can be high jacked by voters. I would like to see RfAs revised; I suspect others would too. Thanks for your response. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

My complaint

OK, thanks for suggestions. I never posted any complaint before so I really don't know how to do it, or how it works. I really don't know how to do it. I'm not really sure what i'm even supposed to do, or how to post the diffs or break up the text. I should probably state I never intend to get anyone in trouble, I just want to issue resolved, because I am being bullied by this one editor for no reason, and i can't understand why. But one of the editors at the wiki basketball project and that I mentioned is an admin, and they never helped in any of this. So it is frustrating.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, in general, Bluesangrel, it helps if you look at other cases on the page and see which ones are provoking the most productive discussion. They are generally concise (brief, to the point), present diffs (so editors can see exactly what you are complaining about) and ask for a particular remedy. I know this can be a challenge if you see a conflict as being complex and longlasting but you really only need to mention the conduct that you believe is inappropriate, not the entire history of a dispute. Editors want to be able to quickly assess what the problem is and what you are asking them to do about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well (I will try to break this up and thanks a lot for your help), basically ArmstrongJulian, for some reason this editor got in their mind that I purposely made false edits to an article. Which i did not, and I have no idea how they got this idea. They kept accusing me of this over and over. I probably should have reported them then, but I just let it go. Then after a long time went by, I forgot all about it honestly. I was editing an article, and the sentence structure of it was just really weird and odd. So I looked at some of the recent edits and I saw also this editor was changing like dozens of basketball articles with the heights of the players, which as far as I knew, was not normal. So I just sent them a message to discuss about it. To me this is normal behavior in Wikipedia. But they got very rude and angry with me for no reason. I just asked why, and I was told they would not discuss anything with me and then they insulted me and so forth. But they said take it to basketball project of Wikipedia and we will discuss it there.

So I did. And then nothing, they started again with I refuse to discuss with you, insults, etc. So i was like whatever you know. But then, I saw by just chance, an article of mine was to be deleted. I never got notified of that. I saw it was by the same ArmstrongJulian. Then I saw they nominated a whole bunch of my articles and never notified me of any of them, and it was right after this. So OK, come on. This editor clearly nominated a bunch of my articles for deletion out of spite, and then did not notify me of it. Plus, false accusing me making false edits on purpose, being rude, they said I never source anything in any edit I make, all my editing is like I am in a fan forum, the list just goes on. There is more, but you get the idea. I really don't like to get anyone in trouble, I did not want to report this person, so I kept not doing so, but they keep on with the same attitude and behavior. And when I said to them, OK stop it, or I am reporting yo, then one of the admin Bagumba that works a lot in the basketball project, he said my one article up for deletion had no external sources, which was untrue, because it did. That is when I realized this had gone too far, and I had to report the situation. Let other admin settle it and stop it. I contribute a lot here, and I don;t want to get bullied and intimated, and I saw bagumba already suggest Wikipedia is not the place for me. So, basically, that is it. That is the issue, and I would like for the bullying and intimidation to stop.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI issue (see above)

Sorry for bothering you and please ignore this if you're not interested in the issue. You were one of a few independent commenters on a recent ANI in which I am involved. There is new material on the issue and I would appreciate your input on the subject. To be clear that does not mean I want you to support me over the other editor, just provide your insight even if it's detrimental to my arguments. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

ArmstrongJulian, I actually wrote a moderately-long comment to that ANI discussion but deleted it when I realized that it would not help resolve the situation. Sometimes pointing out less than admirable behavior just makes editors defensive and doesn't result in them adapting their ways. But I'll take a look at the new material and see if I have anything positive I can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Saying he's defensive is an understatement, I'll let you make your own mind up and comment if you want (I understand it's not your problem and doesn"t have to be), the new material I was talking of comes from Bagumba and myself, the rest is the usual delusional talk. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Thanks for taking the time to provide input at the noticeboard. In the interest of de-escalating yet possibly provide a teaching moment, can you consider helping out with the latest comment? The number of "their article" comments brings up WP:OWN to me, but I'll leave it to an uninvolved person to assess. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, what I gather from the recent comments is that Bluesangrel now understands the deletion process and is mad at Julian (and you by extension) for making him feel bad about arguing his case and the fact he was not notified about the AfD discussions. You can't talk someone out of being angry. The options I see are either for you and Julian to apologize for any antagonism you had towards him (a statement I've rarely seen happen at ANI but it can end some disputes) or just letting this one go and it will simmer down. This means letting go of having to have the last word.

I don't foresee much support in this ANI discussion for a block or topic ban on any editor but I do imagine that the personal animosity to continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. This is the difficult part of collaborative editing, when editors don't quit or retire and aren't blocked but when they continue to edit and editors have to, at the least, tolerate each other. This helps by focusing on the issues under dispute and letting go of sarcasm and talking down to editors who might have less experience. Just my 2 cents. I wish you all luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can handle the insults. For the community, WP:CTDAPE is a concern. Some of it I suspect is our different use and expectations of the English language. At any rate, it's a fine line of how much to let someone vent. I'll let others take it from here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I just saw this discussion. I was coming here to send you a thanks for being nice. Anyway, yes, I was upset about the way after the articles were put up for deletion and I was not notified, and then when I argued against them being deleted, I was given comments about that I was never editing with a source and I was editing like I was in a fan forum (and this was being implied as all my edits across the site), and told about how I should not be defending the articles with more than one vote comment and so forth. It was frustrating. And again, as I explained several times already and from the beginning, it was not a complaint directly about any editor, but about that issue. I said from the beginning, and several times, I specifically wanted no one to get in any discipline or trouble over that. Just that I did not like this being handled that way. But, I saw your comment about someone apologizing and letting any issue go, and ending any issue. I will do that then. I don't need any apology from anyone for anything, and anyone to admit anything.

I express my feeling and my issues I had in this now and already. But I hold no animosity on anyone. Because I saw you say about the basketball project and how it could cause issues there if we continue to discuss, and also contribute in editing in this part of Wikipedia. So that is stupid and needless to cause some nonsense like that. I certainly don't want anything like that. I don't want any personal issue with anyone here. I am only here to edit some articles some, and on occasion I will add an article, and I try to be as good as I can about adding something I think contributes in some way. I definitely do not come in the site to cause issues with others. So with these points you bring up, I explain my position and I will give apology to Julian if they feel bad in some way. Also, to Bagumba, if they feel the same. Actually, after I discussed some with Bagumba, I think this admin is just in disagreement with me in personal issues. I asked them some questions and they answered them and were normal to me. So I have no issues with them. If Julian feels they need some apology I will give one. I see also your comment about sarcasm. I tend to be sarcastic sometimes, and I thought about this, and I realize discussions on Wikipedia are not the best place for this. I thought about it, and I will try to stop doing that as much as possible from now on. It was just that Julian is sarcastic, and I believed in discussions just between a few editors, that sarcasm would be understood, especially when Julian was being sarcastic in several discussions. But I thought about it, and maybe other people don't register sarcasm. So I will not use that again, which I admit I did use a bit.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My desire, Bluesangrel, for editors to look forward to coming to edit Wikipedia and for it to be a productive, collaborative environment. Sometimes, for all of us, that means having detachment towards the articles we work on as no one, even the article creator, owns them. It also means letting perceived slights go by like water off a duck's back. Life is too short and there is always conduct online that one can be upset with, the internet doesn't always bring out the best in people.

My main concern is that all of the editors involved in this dispute will continue to edit basketball articles and are likely to run into each other in the future. You either need to find a way to get along or just stay out of each other's way. The alternative is edit warring and the like which results in blocks and then we would lose some good editors which would be a shame. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not someone that does edit warring. So that is not a problem. But I do like that if I ask someone a question at their talk page about something, that they are respectful in the discussion they have back with me on the issue. But in basketball project there are a lot of arguments in discussions, but I really don't see them as arguments of that nature. Just more like debates, where some editors are strongly set on their opinions. But there are not any fights going on there as far as I know. So I don't think this is a problem. As I said though, I will try to stop using any sarcasm in any comments, as that seems hard for some to know that you are just kidding sometimes.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a question maybe you can answer for me. Is it OK to remove discussions I started in the basketball project then that were related to this, so that the issue of any arguing there would be avoided? I am not sure if there is a rule against that or not? How does that work?Bluesangrel (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluesangrel, it is permitted to remove discussions you started on an article talk page unless another editor has responded to them. If no one has responded to a discussion you began, you can remove it. Alternatively, you can try simply posting that you withdraw the question and that might have the effect of ending the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Can I say that you told me I could do that so no one accuses me of anything? I don't know if anyone will care or whatever, but I don't want an issue.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluesangrel, what will matter more than saying "because Liz says so" is quoting the talk page guideline which is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. In fact, you would benefit by reading the entire page, WP:TPG, because it provides guidance on how to have positive, productive talk page conversations. You can not control how other editors behave but it always helps your case if you, yourself, are following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Does this Talk page guidelines#Requesting a close mean that I have to have an admin do it for me on the discussions that someone replied to?Bluesangrel (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluesangrel, there are thousands of talk page discussions going on every day on Wikipedia and most of them come to a natural conclusion and aren't formally closed. Some exceptions to this is that some editors like to close (hat) conversations on their talk page once they are finished, RfCs that are trying to come to a decision regarding a content or policy issue can be closed by an uninvolved editor or admin and often cases brought to WP:ANI and WP:AN are closed once the situation is resolved.

Often, you can end a discussion by simply stopping your participation. No one needs to have the last word at Wikipedia, if the issue arises again, a new discussion can be started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So then do I ask someone to close it?Bluesangrel (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer this as an abstract question. Please provide a link so I can see what you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiLove

Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.

Spread the good health by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congratulations on your new admin status. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Erpert. I actually was sick this week so I appreciate your good wishes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You, too? Best wishes for recovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

• Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

• News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

• In the media: Is there life on Mars?

• Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

• Traffic report: Another week

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor to AE

Re [8]; the section you posted in is reserved for the editors not wearing the Scarlet A. I've refactored them into the correct section. In the future please be more careful. NE Ent 01:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I was just sharing a relevant comment regarding the editor's request, not weighing in as an administrator in this decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you online?

Hi Liz, a new circus may be unfolding at my RfA... a user is posting an oppose !vote (as they have the right to do, of course) but in the process is also deleting the remarks from someone who was a !support and is trying to comment. These two are involved on opposite sides of a contentious article and topic, and I'd not want to see either of them get into trouble for edit-warring at my RfA. One of them asked if an admin is around, and looks like you are still awake and online, so I'm pinging you. (As for me, I am going to go get some sleep... Monday, real life, work... meh... ) Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, my hours have been spotty as I was traveling and then came down with a nasty bug. I hope you were able to find an admin to help you out. Let me know if this trouble is persisting. I see the RfA circus continues and I think you are handling it quite gracefully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Several people have flat-out removed their support !votes; when I first posted mine, it was number 64; a day or two later and it was 60, now it's 58. 😔 Not to mention all the people chewing out the support !voters. This is getting a little too wild...I'm glad it's nearly over with.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

White Arabian mare, RfAs seem to come in two varieties: a) a mere formality of quick approval or b) a grueling 7 day experience. This RfA is clearly the latter. Editors can switch votes as the week goes on up to the time the RfA is closed. Many times diffs or information provided by other editors moves one to change from Oppose to Support or Support to Neutral. The experience requires endurance on the part of the candidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing that gets me are all the "I'm doing this because so and so did the same"--can't they think for themselves?White Arabian mare (Neigh) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Well, the thing about endorsements is that they can work for you or against you. Sometimes, editors support a candidate based mainly on the esteem they have for the candidate's nominator(s). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You should to archive some of this stuff

Don't you think? Pretty soon it's going to surpass the Great Wall. Hope you are doing well other than that. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I will, Knowledgekid87. I usually only keep one month up on my user talk page but there was such a to-do over that August RfA, I thought I'd leave the messages about it up a little longer. Soon, it'll be Oct. 1st and it'll all be archived. I'm sorry if it is causing a slow load time for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No im fine, and okay whatever you want then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #176

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Past: WikiCon in Dresden
  • Upcoming: office hour on IRC
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • The grant proposal "StrepHit: Wikidata Statements Validation via References" is looking for endorsements
  • Wikidata and it's dumps are now described according to the DCAT-AP standard. You can add your language by translating the general and the Wikidata specific messages.
  • A follow-up to the Wikidata for research proposal has begun to be drafted by the University of Haifa and the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
  • Community page for the new SPARQL query service, including a subpage for interesting or illustrative queries, and a board for suggestions and discussions.
  • Wikibooks now has access to the data on Wikidata
  • English Wikipedia and a few more got arbitrary access
  • Mix'n'match got new catalogs including Open Library authors and AcademiaNet's excellent female authors
  • The LinkedWiki extension now supports Wikidata (demo)
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: FISA ID, Power of 10 athlete ID, Library of Congress JukeBox ID, CrunchBase organisation ID, CrunchBase person ID, CDD Public ID, Nikkaji, ZINC ID, Leadscope ID, M.49 code, BLDAM object ID, AcademiaNet, fabrication method, user manual link, pressure, temperature, speed of sound, internetmedicin.se ID, range, CDB Chemical ID, Mémoire des hommes, Fellow of the Royal Society, magnetic moment, thermal conductivity
• Development
  • Started writing default Lua modules for the Article Placeholder
  • Excluded the Topic namespace from Special:UnconnectedPages
  • Fixed a bug where an item link on normal wiki pages was sometimes prepended by a label (in a random language)
  • Worked on the remaining blockers for redirecting users on mobile devices to the mobile version of the site
  • Fixed an issue where people had login issues when trying to connect an article to an item on the client
  • Worked on removing some more places that don't have language fallback yet
  • Worked more on making meaningful edit summaries show up in the client watchlist and recent changes
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 15:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hey, Liz. I'm not sure what to do about this IP: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.234.250.154). They look like a vandal. RO^(talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, RO. I've given the IP a temporary block to avoid further disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. RO^(talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on Chetro Ketl, by the way! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Boy was that time consuming to put together, but well worth it. You know, I noticed that IP you blocked was from Cox Communications, and I've seen IPs from them vandalize lots of articles in the last few months, so I was wondering if it's from a proxy server, and could we block them long-term on that basis? RO^(talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The geolocation information says that it is a static IP and it hasn't edited very recently until today. Let me know if the editor hops to a different IP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Talk:Chinese room". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 October 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Chinese room, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

committee motion

Why is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_Committee_Motions on ANI? Traditionally those type of announcements have gone on WP:AN? NE Ent 00:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, on the Clerks-l email list, the arbitrators asked for notices to be post on many pages, talk pages of WikiProjects, article talk pages, noticeboards, etc. in order to get more editors involved and providing feedback on the motions. WP:ANI was another page on the list of places where a notice could be posted. You're right, it isn't standard practice but the committee would like to hear more feedback from the community before casting their votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They don't get enough abuse as is? Well, it's their dime. NE Ent 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through a lot of the arbitration committee archives and there doesn't seem to have been a period of time where the committee hasn't received its share of criticism. I think that most arbitrators accept that this is an unwelcome part of the job. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed copyvio issue on Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development

Hi Liz – I recently noticed that you reverted my removal on Speedy deletion tag, Soon after you had reverted and i had to fix the copyvio material from the mentioned URL. Kindly have a look at this copyvio detector and you may consider removing the tag once you're satisfied with the fixed element. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alpha Monarch. I've replied to you on your user talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Bharatiya29's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFA

As far as I can see, Esquivalience is basically making technical improvements, small wording changes, and redoing some formatting; I don't see the changes as being specifically beneficial for nominators, but they do seem to make the page overall slightly more helpful. Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend, that's exactly the kind of critique I was looking for! I appreciate you taking a few moments to look over the contributions for me. I know that RfA instructions have been confusing to candidates in the past and I was just checking to make sure these were improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

• In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Op-ed: Can we please stop bashing Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library

• WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?

• Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dey.sanjoy

Hello Liz, I just wanted to touch base with you about this notice. The links are good for the user, however by working on an article in the Draft space is what is normally recommended for COI users. So I'm not sure what brought him to your attention and why you felt the need to tag an incomplete draft article before it has even been moved/approved for the main space. It does seem a bit WP:BITEY. He has been engaging me on my talk page looking for help and advice. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

McMatter, the editor has the same name as the subject of the draft article. It is recommended that editors not write autobiographical articles and I was passing that advice along. I can't see how an editor can write an article about themselves without the page being the subject of extra scrutiny and perhaps a quick deletion. I'm sorry if you or he found the notice bitey but it's better to alert him to COI concerns before the article is moved to main space. I'm glad you are assisting him, I'm sure an objective eye will help create a stronger article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for a full Saturday (drop-in any time!) of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for our upcoming "WikiArte" Latin America Edit-a-thon, for Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamericana, a communal day of creating, updating, improving, and translating Wikipedia articles about Latin American art and culture. Saturday October 3 WikiArte Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 11:00am - 5:00 pm (drop-in anytime!) at MoMA Cullman Education and Research Building, 4 West 54th Street All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. We will provide training sessions and resources for beginner Wikipedians, WiFi, reference materials, and suggested topics, as well as childcare and refreshments. Please bring your laptop, power cord, and ideas for articles that need to be updated, translated, or created. You are welcome to edit all day or drop by to show your support, and to follow #WikiArte on social media! Trainings for new and less experienced Wikipedia editors will be offered (in English) at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Tutorials and resources in Spanish will be available online, and participants are also encouraged to work on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions of Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Next event, October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

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

Mail

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

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice, mentioned you in an Arbitration Enforcement report

Giving you notice that I've mentioned you (with regards to a warning you gave as an admin) at an Arbitration Enforcement report.

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bachcell.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Cirt. As you know, a DS notice to the editor is required before sanctions can be imposed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and that's what you did. — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope to have my training wheels off soon enough. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but good luck! — Cirt (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant Training wheels, the stabilizers put on bicycles that assist young children as they learn to ride a bike. I meant, as a new admin, every action taken in the first few months is part of learning how to be an administrator. Sorry for if I was unclear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Got the reference, didn't know you were a new admin. Congratulations! And good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #177

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Past: IRC office hour (log with summary of past 3 months, OSM integration and more)
  • Upcoming: code.talks
  • Upcoming: Wikiconference USA
  • Wikidata-Items schnell auf der Kommandozeile nachschlagen? Mediawiki APIs hacken
  • A sea-change in science citation? The Wikipedia Science conference.
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Great collaboration between a group of Flemish museums and art collections and Wikidata
  • Wikidata timeline is another tool that gives you nice timelines based in Wikidata's data (examples: American Sitcoms, Wars, Meryl Streep)
  • Cool new tool by Magnus for dynamic list generation
  • nlwiki has made great progress in getting down the number of articles not connected to Wikidata
  • The Museum of Modern Art website now includes Wikidata IDs (example)
  • 50.79% of all #Wikidata items have none, one or two statements now. Next month it is likely to be less than half. Good progress!
  • Some more examples to get you started with Wikidata's query service: 1, 2, 3
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Membership, YerelNet village ID, prize money, radius, vapor pressure, kinematic viscosity, combustion enthalpy, vaporization enthalpy, NDF-RT ID, Half-Life, sublimation temperature, wing area, power output, Kunstindex Danmark artwork, decomposition point, RXNO Ontology, size of team at finish, size of team at start, boiling point, melting point, Banque de noms de lieux du Québec id, BC Geographical Names ID, substitute/deputy/replacement of office/officeholder, term length of office, image legend, co-driver, qualifies for, short author name, Bildindex der Kunst und Architektur ID
• Development
  • You can now find the Wikibase ontology at http://wikiba.se/ontology
  • Special:UnconnectedPages will have a namespace filter
  • Worked on a small birthday present (One month left!) and party organizing (more info coming in the next days)
  • Language fallbacks will be shown also when adding a new statement, in qualifiers and references as well as for badges
  • Fixed a long-standing login issue when adding a new language link from Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T50389)
  • Worked on RfC for multi-content revisions. This is groundwork for Commons support. (phabricator:T107595)
  • More work on making meaningful edit summaries show up in the watchlist and recent changes on Wikipedia and co
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 17:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Why?

[9]. I was just making a space in preparation for my evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was standardizing the format so that your section resembled that of other editors who are participating in the case. It was an empty section that had no information posted in it and it looked like a mistake. I would think you'd add the header to a section after you had added the section, not before. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Tryptofish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I restored it, no problem. (I have an idiosyncratic habit of making a section header, and then editing that section, on complex and highly edited discussion pages.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

On the clerking position. I still felt guilty that I bailed but you've made it easier, because I know it is in good hands. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about bailing...but thank you for the compliment! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard

I replied to your comment about Aaron Rodgers. you can reply there. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I found another source on the NFL website, too, so I'll make the edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report, Montreal to host 2017 Wikimania

• In the media: Irish legislative editing; coffee quarrel; more sports vandalism

• Op-ed: Wikipedia needs more administrators

• Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?

• Tech news: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Recent Revert

My CSD criterion for Mack Garner was "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone or unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." How was the BLP sourced? Please ping me when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: the criteria for G10 is These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.. This article might be unsourced but there is nothing negative in the short stub at all and that is a requirement for an attack page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw your additional revert. How about this though:

"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)" from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons? Twinkle seems to be incorrect, then, in saying "negatively in tone [OR] unsourced," where, under G10, it says "entirely negative in tone [AND] unsourced." --JustBerry (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I'm not saying that there are no grounds for speedy deletion of these articles. It's just that G10 isn't the correct tag.

"Negative in tone" would be if a recent article said, "George Smith is a crook who steals money from his clients. It's amazing that he hasn't been arrested and sent to prison. And he's an ugly dude, too." That is an attack page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I understand your point and am well-aware what an attack page is. The problem is that I don't think Twinkle's description of G10 is correct. --JustBerry (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, the article also had a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And why in the world did you move it to draft space? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: The user said themselves that it was their first edit; it is highly recommended that inexperienced users submit to WP:AfC, or at least make an article in the draftspace. Do you seriously think the article is ready for the mainspace? If so, by all means, undo my actions on that draft, but I don't agree. Also, about the ref, the ref on the bottom was updated, although the link was originally there. --JustBerry (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on Twinkle's abbreviation of deletion criteria to be your guide. And also, please do not tag a page for deletion so soon after it has been created because the editor might still be working on it. In one case, a minute after the article was created, you tagged. That is seen as very bitey to new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What are sandboxes for then? If you insist, the article can be left in the mainspace. --JustBerry (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, the article is a perfect example of a stub. The subject is clearly notable, the prose is clear, and it has a good source. Now we need volunteers to expand it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I suppose I see your point. I'll look out for that in the future; thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that new users don't always "get" about the sandbox thing. Sometimes they just dive in headfirst. Another reason not to bite. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As I trouted JustBerry for this AfD and he asked me to return here, just a comment that this was an utterly ridiculous tag because there was absolutely nothing negative in the very first post. Please re-read WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Absolutely no criteria for deletion of a sourced stub like this exists. Can this be stated any more clearly? Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I'm not sure what part of "I'll look out for that in the future" wasn't clear to you. --JustBerry (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The part that said, "I'm sorry that I put the wrong tag on this article that claimed it was an attack piece." You could also thank me for the trout, they are quite tasty. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Education is the preferred method. I think JustBerry will be more careful in the future. I know I've been criticized for a few of my CSD tags...you make mistakes, you learn and hopefully you don't make them in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: As cheesy as it may sound, if it's not explicitly my fault, I don't usually prefer taking full blame for it. It should be understood, quite frankly, that Twinkle had a wrong description of the tag. If you say that "Twinkle shouldn't be relied upon," I would like to disagree, considering how many users use Twinkle. In any event, I understand the point here and will be more mindful of it in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I might suggest that if there is no suitable option in Twinkle, them maybe Twinkle or CSD isn't appropriate, and {{subst:PROD}} would be a better option? Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, before tagging you should ask yourself not only if the article can be tagged, but also if it should be tagged. First step is to see who created it. If it's an experienced editor, assume they know what they're doing and pop a question on their talk page if you want to (aka what I refer to as, "Don't annoy content creators with the small stuff"). If it's a newbie, and the content looks credible and non-spammish, consider doing a WP:BEFORE. I know that's for AFD nominations but you'll definitely get a good feeling if you can help a new editor out by finding a source or just fixing up some formatting issues, even if it's a one or two sentence article. For example, this one sentence stub I fought to save turned into this and appeared on the Main Page as a DYK item thanks to the efforts of other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Quite frankly, thanks a lot for that comment. I will take it to heart in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

talkback

NE Ent 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #178

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Past: code.talks (slides on migrating Freebase to Wikidata)
  • Past: Wikidata:Mobilizing Open Cultural Data (videos, slides)
  • Upcoming: Wikidata's 3rd birthday. We will have a party and you should come! (announcement, program and other details, IMPORTANT: sign up so we know how many people to expect)
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • There are now almost 5000 articles in Czech Wikipedia which include an infobox without parameters, only with data from Wikidata.
  • Input request about editing Wikidata from clients like Wikipedia
  • Freebase to Wikidata: results of Tpt's internship have been published
  • Articles without a Wikidata item can now be filtered by category tree. (example for chemists on enwiki)
  • Wikidata:Units attempts to list available units and properties they can be used with
  • Constraint reports can now check if units are within a user defined list: e.g. report for mass (P2067)
  • WikiProject Economics needs more participants to organize all the new properties.
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Georgian national system of romanization, Hepburn romanization, membership, YerelNet village ID, prize money, radius, vapor pressure, kinematic viscosity, combustion enthalpy, vaporization enthalpy, NDF-RT ID, half-life, sublimation temperature, wing area, power output, Kunstindex Danmark artwork, decomposition point, RXNO Ontology, size of team at finish, size of team at start, boiling point, melting point
• Development
  • Changed the default RDF flavor to include all statements (phabricator:T101837)
  • Started to work on creating new articles from scratch from the article placeholder
  • Continued work on the Lua libraries of the default Article Placeholder layout
  • Started the research on client editing with an input page
  • More work on making the mobile view fit for being enabled per default for mobile users
  • Changed our JavaScript coding style to be more in line with MediaWiki core’s
  • In edit mode, the label is now displayed for units instead of a URL
  • Added a new “YearMonthDay” date parser that supports many edge cases where all other date parsers fail
  • More work on passing full edit summaries to the client wikis.
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrative request

It has come to my attention that Wnt, who has more than 60 good starts and who has been around the block at En-WP many times over many years, still does not have the Auto-Reviewed permission for new starts. Will you please take a look at his editing history and enable him for this? Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, is there a reason he can't post a request at WP:PERM/PCR? It's a request that is likely to be granted. Except for autopatrol rights, the editor who desires the rights needs to ask for them, rather than a third party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rollback is granted without an explicit request as well. Usually when an admin notices an experienced editor constantly doing recent changes patrol. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• My experience with this permission is that it is something that can be bestowed by an administrator with nobody asking (as it was in my case) or at the request of third parties who note the oversight (as in this case; i've made several such requests over the years). It's one of the little perks of your Admin toolkit that you can give these Mega Barnstars to worthy content people (while at the same time easing the workload on the overworked new page patrollers). Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: I'm afraid you've blundered into a fossil dispute. This dates back to the introduction of WP:Pending Changes - I was one of some people notified one day that I'd been given the permission while the feature was experimental. I then had a disagreement with User:Ianmacm User:Scott MacDonald about whether BLP meant taking out mention of Pippa Middleton's "topless photos", in which, in the midst of a more timid debate, I said what Wikipedia ought to do was to reproduce the photos at low resolution under Fair Use, if only to clue readers in that to the British Press what looked like a speckled bikini counts as "topless". Well, he revoked the permission for suggesting that. There was a big argument, someone wrote an essay (I forget who or where), nothing much happened except that I came to be a strong opponent of Pending Changes, and am glad to see at least that it remains an uncommon method of article protection. I suppose at some point the auto-review right must have been merged with it - I forgot there was an auto-review right actually. Anyway, I still have the opinion that the Fair Use photos would be the best approach to that article, and I'm not eager to ask for any permission that might imply giving up the right to say so. Not to mention that with Pending Changes permission it is actually harder to tell what is going on with the system with the permission since everything you do is auto-accepted; if I blunder into an egregious case I'll just complain about it. Last but not least, I know I recently sort-of-agreed with you about an Arbcom case, which makes this too political a suggestion to really be an honest barnstar. At some point I may try to dig into this again, but not today. Thanks anyway though! Wnt (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction - it was User:Scott MacDonald. The discussion page (not really an essay) was here My memory must be getting fritzy. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Wnt. I'm glad I didn't act before hearing from you. Should you wish to gain the right, please simply post a request! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wait, Tim is asking about autopatrolled rights for Wnt, not WP:Pending Changes. Did I get that right? - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, autopatrolled. He should have that flag, bang bang, we're done. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yes, reviewer usually refers to the right to review pending changes. I've given Wnt autopatrol rights. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ta. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for a full day and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture. Thursday, October 15 Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon—to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for help with Category move

Hi Liz, Hoping you can use your powers to help out with fixing a problem. I boldly moved Category:Singles_Certified_Platinum_by_the_Australian_Recording_Industry_Association to Category:Singles_certified_platinum_by_the_Australian_Recording_Industry_Association to match the same capitalization as for other nations; but unfortunately the pages in that category have not moved across.

I've tried to move the category back to the original location, but do not have sufficient access to do so.

Would it be possible for you to remove the redirect & move the page back? Appreciate any assistance that you can provide. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Update - Actually looks like it might be fixed now. Renamed category is populated. I will raise an XfD to clean up the redirect. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, it's never a good idea to move a category like you'd move an article because categories do not have redirects. Next time, you should go to WP:CFD and add it as a speedy rename/delete if it is a simple move and is unlikely to be contested. The admins working at CfD have a lot of experience with speedy renames plus, there is a bot which can change the category names on the associated pages rather than having to do so manually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Many thanks for the excellent advice; I shall definitely bear it in mind going forward. A lot of interesting information as WP:CFD. Looking over the bit on CATREDs, it looks like the redirect should remain, at least for a short while; so no cleanup looks to be required at this stage. In the words of the Bard, alls well that ends. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Phyllis

Hi Liz. I saw that you moved Phyllis Lapin-Vance earlier per WP:MAIDEN. I just wanted to let you know NBC does list the character as Lapin-Vance [10] while Pam's character is listed only as Halpert [11]. Calidum 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Calidum, WP:MAIDEN was the rationale in the CSD tag that was placed on the article (which is now no longer visible in the page history) and it seemed sound to me at the time. I now note that this article has been moved from Phyllis Vance to Phyllis Lapin then to Phyllis Lapin-Vance and now back to Phyllis Vance.

The title of this article should be discussed at Talk:The Office (U.S. TV series) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Office task force to get a consensus. Or you can start a discussion at WP:RM if you think that would be a better venue. With so many moves for this article, I'm not going to move it back until there is some agreement on what this article should be titled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the CSD tag. I don't really have strong feelings about the name (I can't remember the hyphenated name being used on the show) so I don't plan on moving it back. Calidum 23:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Calidum, after this move, I looked into WP:RM and found there was a similar discussion going on about Pam Halpert which has the opposite conclusion (going with her married name, not maiden name). Check that out if you have an opinion on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

reminder

A7 does not apply to schools, and all high schools are considered notable. Even Al-Rehman School of Alpha Studies. 10th grade = high school in most of the world. DGG ( talk ) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DGG, my attention was drawn to this article because I was looking through the deletion log, seeing if any deleted articles had been recreated. This article had been deleted on October 7, 2015 by RHaworth (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I had some doubts about deleting a recreated article about a high school which is why I tagged it instead of deleting it myself. Thanks for informing me that articles about high schools are always considered notable and these articles are not self-promotional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

they can be promotional. I have deleted some via G11 myself, if they are mainly devoted to saying how good the school is in an advertising manner. This had one sentence of so of that only, which I removed. G11 is tricky, because it has no clear boundaries, and various admins go by different standards--& even one admin will go by different standards depending of degree of exasperation with inadequate new articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that a better way of saying this is that we have a very strong working consensus, established by the consistent outcome of hundreds or thousands of deletion debates, that accredited, degree awarding high schools are presumed notable by the community. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RM#TR

Hi! I'm writing about [12]. What was not correct? --Holopoman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Holopoman,

I misunderstood the CSD rationale so I have reverted my edit. I will let an administrator more experienced in page move and accompanying deletions handle this page. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok! Thank you for your help. --Holopoman (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aticles for deletion/1369 Coffeehouse

It's important to understand that

1. Redirects are cheap
2. Redirects have more than one purpose.

This page sat at that location for several years. Therefore, unless there is a good reason a redirect should exist to the current location. The principle behind this is WP:Don't break the web - (essay not written yet) notably based on Tim Berners-Lee's (1998) dictum Cool URIs don't change.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Rich, it is a misspelling that I don't believe any reader or editor would ever make, especially looking for an article that was deleted years ago. I can't see what purpose it had as most people know that the word is articles not aticles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly one editor (me) did make that error in 2010.

However if the page were recently created, I'd agree, or at least not object to the rationale (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect). However the page sat there for four years, from 15 April 2010‎ until a couple of days ago.

We cannot assume that nothing in the entire world links to that URL.

The reason I raise this is not that this particular redirect is important, it's that the principle is very important. We should never break a URL without good reason.

This is particularly the case with WP redirects which are uber-cheap in terms of resource. In fact it costs more to delete a redirect than to keep it, in almost every way of measuring.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

I'll keep all of that sound advice in mind, Rich. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hi, please note that when I create categories, they are not empty at time of creation. I see the ones in the Philippines that you have tagged. For "educational institutions" in ..., the categories were populated originally, but the articles have been further categorized so these categories are not needed.Jllm06 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Jllm06, in the past, I have just stumbled across empty categories every once in a while. But I found a database list and have been tagging a lot of them today. I saw your name on a bunch of them (but not as many as another prolific category creator!) so I thought I'd drop you a note. Since then, I've seen that some of the categories were emptied and blanked, and I assume the editor thought then someone else would see them and tag them for deletion. You do a lot of categorization so it is natural that some of the ones you created have been superseded and are no longer necessary.

I'm sorry if my note sounded like I was chiding you because I know how much experience you have editing, both in terms of how long you've been editing and how many edits you have made. That was not my intent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

RFPP

Hey Liz, great to see you at RFPP. You might want to use this script: User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper. It saves you from having to look up codes. P.S. Fixed one of your responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for fixing my mistake. I tried adding the code twice, got error messages but I think I finally got it right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives characters (2010s)

Hi, Liz. Here you said the page has been protected but, when I go to the page it has not been protected.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, I thought I protected that page but my contributions list says otherwise. I must not have finished the process. It is protected now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Exposure is not the same thing as radiation

As the page you deleted made perfectly clear. Exposure is caused by radiation, it is not radiation. The radiation article as it currently exists does not anywhere define what exposure is, so you cannot really say that the Exposure (radiation) page was redundant.

Don't believe me? Put in a tag and give me a week or two to provide references. I was in the process of putting together some references for the stub article. I did not realize I was up against a ticking clock.

Radiation is not a measure of charge per unit mass. Exposure is.

Rwflammang (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rwflammang, you are free to work on an article in your sandbox, User:Rwflammang/Sandbox, until you think it is ready to put into the main Wikipedia space. These pages are considered drafts are are left alone unless there are problems like copyright infringement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please restore the deleted article, and I will work on it in the main wikipedia space. It was certainly no worse than any other beginning stub article, and better than most. The deletion was clearly based on the mistaken assumption that Exposure (radiation) was the same thing as Radiation. In the main Wikipedia space, it will be easier for other editors of nuclear articles to find and improve than it would be in my sandbox, and it will be more easily linked to in those articles that mention exposure, such as roentgen (unit), rad (unit), and rem (unit). Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rwflammang, I've put the material at User:Rwflammang/Sandbox. I recommend you submit any future articles to Articles for Creation rather than putting them directly into Wikipedia main space. At AfC, an experienced editor will review your article and it won't face immediate deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

• Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption

• Traffic report: Reality is for losers

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Gallery: Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Pakistan

• Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of SCHULTCHEN page

Hi Liz,

Seems my family heritage page, Christopher Franz SChultchen was deleted.

Firstly, I am not anti Semtic. I understand the information expressed may sound like a well tailored hoax, but it is not. May you please restore it for me, so I may at least preserve the information. I may even compromise with you and edit it as "a conspiracy theory" if you wish. However it is only a confirmation of genius then isn't it?

Thanks so much, Please reply,

Sincerely CHRSTOPHER FRANZ SCHULTCHEN Tandynfan (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tandynfan, that article was deleted because it was seen as an obvious hoax article. Even if it is not, Wikipedia is not the proper location for a "family heritage page". Maybe you could create a website or blog to write about your family. If you want to write legitimate articles in the future, please use your sandbox and don't put articles in Wikipedia main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please send my work back, I was just getting started

Be civil Tandynfan (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Father immaculate, Franz Schuld was also known as, Franz Kafka during his studies in Eastern Europe. His given name Schultchen, is a combination of German and Hebrew, meaning to teach God's grace. It remains the definitive Yiddish name, Schultchen, without English accent, pronounced, Schuld.

Kafka, a fictional character, was innovative in propaganda techniques for Nazi party, then known as Ashkenazi education program, as his likeness remained a mystery.

This is pure rubbish. I'm not going to restore this material. Please find another website where this inventive writing is welcomed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Facts

If my family heritage is connected to Churchill and Ferdinand, why would it be inappropriate to create this Wikipedia page? With lovely photos... Tandynfan (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've given you my response. And I would bet it would be the same answer from any other administrator. Any further messages to this talk page will be reverted and you are becoming disruptive. I've tried to be kind and suggest you find another website to edit on because if you continue on in this manner, you will find yourself blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #179

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Past: WikiCon USA (slides)
  • Ongoing: World Health Summit (slides)
  • Upcoming: ODI Summit with a session on the gene-related efforts on Wikidata
  • Don't forget to sign up if you are coming to Wikidata's third birthday party.
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Discussion has started on English WikiProject Football about using Wikidata for player squad templates (example) and player club history (example). Needs more input on best practices and commitment to update data.
  • A command line client to the SPARQL query service has been released
  • Query example: popularity of the given name Adolf
  • MoMa artists have been added to Mix'n'match
  • Books without authors on Wikidata are now down to 12.5K from 25K since drive began. You can help get it down even further.
  • Number of articles that are not connected to a Wikidata item on Catalan Wikipedia has been brought down significantly. How about yours?
  • This Month in GLAM has Wikidata coverage
  • Interested in British politics? WikiProject British Politicians has some stats to show where you can help out
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: median lethal dose, first aid measures, official symbol, units used for this property, external subproperty, external superproperty, volume for quantity, semi-major axis, cash, explosive velocity, torque, Max TDP, maximum thrust, metallicity, market capitalization, discharge, spectral line, decay width, gyromagnetic ratio, flux, household wealth, real gross domestic product growth rate, net worth, cruise speed, radial velocity, proper motion, parallax, longitude of ascending node, angular distance, position angle, relative to, SourceForge project, average shot length, Spotify track ID, Discogs release ID, Spotify album ID, minimum explosive concentration, upper flammable limit, lower flammable limit, dipole moment, electric charge, autoignition temperature, (average) gradient, production volume, students count, Soccerbase manager id, PSS-Archi architect id, Soccerbase player id, endangeredlanguages.com ID, NILF author id, C-SPAN identifier of a person, BiblioNet publisher identifier, BiblioNet author identifier, BiblioNet publication identifier, Wiki Loves Monuments ID, DLI, history of topic, ISO 9:1995, Finnish Ministers database ID, Finnish MP ID, Kansallisbiografia ID, ACM Classification Code (2012), solvent, solubility, drug used for treatment, medical condition treated
• Development
  • You'll now get redirected to the mobile view automatically on mobile devices (example)
  • Made it possible to use more entities on a page via Lua without running into Lua's memory limit
  • Added the Article Placeholder extension’s results to the search result page (this is one of a few remaining blockers before we can put it on a testsystem for you to try out and give feedback)
  • Added option to create a new article from Article Placeholder
  • More work on the new datatype for properties
  • More work on making meaningful edit summaries on the client. Found a few remaining bugs during testing.
  • More work on a birthday present :D
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub

I read on WP:TFD and WP:CFD that stub-type templates are considered categories, hence my tag for speedy deletion under C1. Where should I go to get the category deleted? Cobblet (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cobblet, what is the category you want deleted? CSD C1 is only for empty categories, that is categories that contain no articles or pages.

You can look at CSD for criteria for templates but, you're right, TFD says "Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories", so if the CSD criteria don't fit, propose a deletion at CFD. I hope that helps.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Denisarona. I've been looking over the first edits of newly registered accounts and came across this unexpected edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

CSD, AFD and hoaxes

Hey, I simply wanted to mention I've noticed you often won't the AfDs if the article has been speedied (I haven't seen it recently but I thought I'd mention anyway). Second, would you please move Francisco Palma Domingo to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? Cheers , SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, I don't understand. Do you mean that if an article has been tagged with a CSD tag, I won't send it to AfD? That's probably true as I created several AfDs for articles that were speedy deleted before the discussion even got started. So, I assumed that the speedy delete was often acted on more immediately than AfDs. Do you have an example that you are thinking of, in case I was mistaken? I'm still learning.

I'm not familiar moving articles into Wikipedia space but I will look into it. I hope I can oblige. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't pinpoint an example at this moment but it is a case of an AfD (started by anyone) and you speedy deleted it without closing the open AfD. Several users including myself patrol AfD logs to close any still open AfDs but it helps when the deleting admin can close it themselves. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand now. I think I've done that once or twice. I haven't closed an AfD yet so I'll figure out the right templates to use and do so in the future.

As for the hoax article, most of those listed on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia stayed up for at least one year (if not several years) so I don't know if having a hoax article up for three weeks will qualify. Hoax articles like that one get posted and deleted every day so I'm not sure if this one was particularly notable. But I saw some editing that needs to be done on that page so I'll become more familiar with the standards of including a hoax over the next few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Softblock

I gather it's not that easy to accidentally override another admin's block these days. So I have to question, softblock, really? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

zzuuzz, I based that block on their username. I should have looked at their contributions. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I'm not so bothered about the autoblock and so on, but this way they get a more appropriate message. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Consideration for Arbitration Clerk

Hi Liz, I was wondering if you would consider me for becoming a clerk trainee? samtar ^(msg) 20:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Samtar, unlike editor adoption, clerk trainees need to contact the clerks team and request a review. It's not a one-on-one process of instruction. Just read over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration clerks seeking new volunteers and follow the guidance on sending in an email message to the list outlining your editing background and someone on the team will contact you.

I will say that we just appointed three new trainee clerks and probably won't be taking on new clerks for a few more months. But every year, there is a need for new trainees, if you are still interested in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies - I must have misread this, especially the section which states "Editors interested in becoming a clerk should contact a current full clerk and ask that they be considered.". Many thanks :) samtar ^(msg) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for an apology! And you did contact a clerk and I instructed you to send in an email message to the clerks list. That's just how things are done now. Reviewing questionnaires sent back from applicants is done by all clerks and the arbitrators who want to participate via email so it's not a decision made by one individual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense! Many thanks for your help Liz, have a nice day! samtar ^(msg) 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't received it, Yamaguchi先生. I know GMail has issues with some mail formats (my emails from my Yahoo! account sent through Wikipedia's "Email this user" were never received). I'll let you know if it is delivered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生. I've received and responded to your email message. I hope it's helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in September 2015.

• Drone photography of Versailles
• Wikimedia project milestones: Swedish Wikipedia hits 2 million
• What I Learned: Wikipedia Education Program in Argentina
• In September, we love monuments
• Reimagining the Wikimedia Foundation’s grants
• Wikipedia’s very active editor numbers have stabilized—delve into the data with us
• Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naka Muzzafra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial area (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) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Open source video games template

I just saw you deleted the page Template:Open source video games, using the rule G8 as reason. However, I don't understand what was wrong with this template and justified a such deletion. Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nicolas.le-guen,

Template:Open source video games was merely a redirect to Template:Open-source video games, a page which was deleted due to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 5#Template:Open-source video games. CSD G8 is applied to pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page and since that template was a redirect to a deleted template, it served no purpose. If you would like to recreate Template:Open-source video games, I'd read over the deletion discussion to see why the editors decided the page should be deleted and keep those considerations in mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Calicut Review

Hi Liz. You deleted Calicut Review on 10 October, I recall it being a soft redirect to the same article on Malayalam Wikipedia that had been speedy deleted. Could you look up the article title on ml:w in the redirect and could you tell me which account created the redirect, please. I'm asking to know if there is evidence for adding other accounts to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aboobackeramani. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, I went to ml:കാലിക്കറ്റ്‌ റിവ്യൂ and could see that the article was deleted by Irvin calicut. But since the article has been deleted, I can not see who created that page because it is on another wikipedia and it is only available to admins there.

The account who created the page on the English Wikipedia was CalicutReview, who is blocked and Sriharitvm also changed the redirect on that page but those were their only edits. I'm not sure if this helps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It does, I will add it to the SPI filing, thank you, Liz. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, what is interesting is that there are completely different accounts who edited Calicut Review and Talk:Calicut Review. I think you have more accounts to add to your list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

AamPP (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) already added, but tell me if notice more. Al Ameer son very obviously is not part of the farm. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't know what to do about this

I'm contacting you because you're an admin. There was a user who registered as USPC2015 and was changing everything on United States Pony Clubs, saying it was inaccurate. They blanked the article once and I reverted it. Montanabw told them they were wrong and I told them they were wrong. They are citing the USPC as their only source for their changes, even though I described citing other sources like Practical Horseman magazine on their talk page. They claim to be working for Pony Club, which I know means corporate account and is not allowed. Now they have created another account called Acuratehorse or something and are at it again. I just don't know what to do. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you and Montanabw are bringing up valid concerns on USPC2015's talk page and having a discussion which is good. If it turns into edit-warring or there is belligerence, please let me know. But a lot of what we do at Wikipedia is education and explaining to new editors the standards and practices of Wikipedia and that occurs through dialogue.

As for Acuratehorse, I posted a welcome message and advised them to be careful if they have a conflict-of-interest. I do not have checkuser access so I can't check to see if they are two accounts used by the same person. You can either file an inquiry at WP:SPI or contact a checkuser directly, offer your evidence and perhaps they will do a quick check for you. I also see the use of IP216.7.136.198 but I imagine that this is USPC2015 editing logged out.

I have put the article on my watchlist but I've found in situations like this, what helps the most is having more editors keeping tabs on an article in case the situation escalates. Right now, you're in the midst of discussion and working out differences which can be challenging. But I don't currently see behavior that is blockworthy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the watchlisting, Liz. Feel free to intervene as you see fit. I've run into these sorts before and they just don't have a clue and go off calling me an evil reptilian kitten-eater when all I'm trying to do is explain to them - on my volunteer time - that they can't just copy and paste the whole website verbatim and then demand that we do it their way... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and

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

One of the issues I had was that they copy-pasted from the USPC website and then told me when I suggested they cite a magazine article or something else, that that would be plagiarism. 😛 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd definitely keep an eye on the article. But so far the editing doesn't reach the threshold of disruption. I hope both editors take Montanabw's advice and come to discuss the matter on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be the same person... or two people who know each other. Sigh. Once again, someone is apt to stomp off in a huff, muttering about how impossible it is to edit wikipedia, all because they Just. Won't. Listen. For the record, here is a good way to work with a COI editor and an example of one who had a great attitude: [13] Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Aftab Group

Hi Liz,

I was making an article on Aftab Group in Bangladesh. Which is a massive business group with a big number of listed companies under it.

I so forth tried to be fair in writing, added NO wow words, NO promotional words, NO untrue words, but the article got deleted twice.

I have found many other giant Bangladeshi groups are still existing here in Wiki like a) Navana Group b) Pran-RFL group etc

Apart from Bangladesh Aftab group has its venture and offices in India, Thailand, USA, UK, Brazil, Australia. All together 15000 employees are working under the group.

It has 2 Public Limited companies under the group, one commercial bank with 224 branches.

Every year a lot of business students do apprenticeship, internship and research work on the organogram, financials and case studies of companies under Aftab Group.

So i believe this group should be existing in Wiki for the grater benefits on the students, investors, suppliers, researchers.

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME BY GIVING A REFERENCE ARTICLE / REFERENCE GROUP'S ARTICLE WHICH I CAN FOLLOW AND CONTRIBUTE AN ARTICLE ON AFTAB GROUP? I HAVE DONE RESEARCH JOB THERE AND I HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF INFORMATION OF THAT GROUP WITH ME.

sadik Major in Finance and Economics Independent University Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharifsadik (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

First, Sharifsadik, read the messages on your talk page, especially User talk:Sharifsadik#User:Sharifsadik/Sandbox that suggests to you that you work on articles in your sandbox. Alternatively, you can create a draft article (like Draft:Aftab Group) where you could work on the article and it will not be vulnerable to speedy deletion unless there are copyright violations or it is seen as blatant advertising. Additionally, I recommend going to Wikipedia:Your first article and following the advice there.

I have the feeling that there is some pressure on you to have this article appear in Wikipedia main space right now and that is just not going to work without the article meeting Wikipedia standards (see your Welcome message for links). You also might have a conflict of interest if you are creating these articles on someone else's behalf so you should read up on that policy as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your move of List of unlawfully killed transgender people

I have reverted this move. I understand your thinking, but you have not necessarily considered that people may be killed by accident (lawful), and other lawful means including lawful execution.

There was much discussion about the article's title on the talk page some time ago. If you wish to move the article to a new title then this one requires consensus. I have invoked WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted, and I am proposing a discussion, though on the article's talk page, not here. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent, I have no objections to your reversions. I'll make sure the redirects I changed are changed back. The wording of this title is very awkward as most of the lists of people killed are either about murders or specify the type of death (electrocution, war, assassination, etc.).

I looked on the talk page to see if there were any recent discussions about the title but the ones that exist were from years ago. An editor brought up the issue in 2014 but the suggestion didn't get much response so I concluded that there wasn't any strong opinion on the matter. I see that I was wrong about that. I still think it is a terrible article title but I'll leave the matter to those editors who contribute to this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the title is clunky and even that the article is poor. It is, at best, a working title. I would love someone to come up with a far better title that encompasses the fact that the folk slain were Trans and that the death was not by lawful means. Are you up for making the attempt?

I think I changed the redirects. I wondered about leaving it to a bot, but decided I ought to have a go myself. Fiddle Faddle 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion here and invite you to contribute. I ma by no means wedded to the current title, as you can see. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have a very long list of articles I'm keeping an eye on but I'd like to hear people's opinions about this suggested change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I was wondering about broadening to to RFC. What are your thoughts on that? Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Pail & Shovel Party

Hi, Liz,

Got your notification of deletion of Pail & Shovel. Not a big deal, but part of my rationale for posting it include the following:

1. There are already several references to the topic from other Wikipages.
2. Several of the party's exploits actually made national news at the time.
3. The P&S "phenomenon" fits broadly into the college political climate of the time. It was a harbinger of a kind of counter-counter-culture that had become disenchanted with the popular "Free Abby Hoffman" and other liberal political movements at the time. That seems archival-worthy.
4. The party's exploits are part of broader American folklore. Do a web search on "flamingo university wisconsin" and count the hits; similarly with "statue liberty university wisconsin"

At least for the sake of explaining an otherwise unnecessarilly cryptic references to the topic in articles about "Jay Kennedy", "Jim Mallon", "Andrew Mozina", and "Statue of Liberty in popular culture", it seems that at least a token explanatory piece is in order. One can probably argue that it's better to keep the Wikipedia references as self-contained as possible.

Since Wikipedia articles grow piecemeal, the initial stub of course didn't provide any complete rationale justifying the page's existence. I didn't know that was a criterion to seed an article. Back on Ward's Wiki we let such content emerge organically from community, and in this case I was hoping that such justification would come from people closer to the details of the party than I was afforded the opportunity to enjoy.

In the mean time, thanks for your hard work at that end.

Jcoplien (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Jcoplien, if you would like to work on Pail & Shovel Party, ask the admin who deleted the page, Just Chilling, if they can put the article into your sandbox or in Draft space. This will allow you to edit the article, improving the sourcing, and as long as there aren't copyright violations or promotional content, you can work on it for at least six months before it might face deletion. When you feel it is ready, you can submit it to Articles for creation and have it reviewed by an experienced editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for cleaning up categories on numerous typhoon articles! Some of these can be quite a mess.

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit, well, what I'm doing is just making sure that every typhoon in the subcategories is also listed in Category:Typhoons. I'm not working on the regional categories quite yet. Thanks for the kitten! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

• Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith

• WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States

• Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence

• News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate

• Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death

• Featured content: A fistful of dollars

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at AlexTheWhovian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alex|The|Whovian 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I request that you answer this immediately. I'm noting your contributions after the above post. Regards. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kalyan Varma

Thank you liz. Looks like the post on Kalyan Varma has been removed, but I do not see it in my sandbox. Any way to retrieve it? Venkatraman.blr (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Venkatraman.blr, I'll take care of that for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #180

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • How many female scientists are there on Wikipedia? This time with SPARQL! (French)
  • Wikidata Enpoint SPARQL and the paintings of Goya Wikidata's SPARQL endpoint and the paintings of Goya (French)
  • Upcoming: 3rd Birthday \o/ (Please don't forget to register if you're coming to the party.)
  • More wrapups of Wikiconference USA including slides: [14], [15]
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Magnus overhauled the Wikidata Game! Sweeeeeet! Now includes one where you can match an author and a publication. And it has stats.
  • Mix'n'match got skyscrapers to match up for you.
  • Sitelinks and P569 compares various Wikipedias by the proportion of items with date of birth (Property:P569)
  • Catalan Wikipedia match up all of their articles to items on Wikidata. Congrats!
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: periapsis, apoapsis, Florentine musea catalogue ID, reason for deprecation
• Development
  • Worked on adding auto-completion for item and property prefixes to the SPARQL query editor (so you can search by label when entering a query)
  • Wrote maintenance script for changing some properties from datatype string to upcoming datatype identifier
  • More work on birthday present
  • More work on the article placeholder to get it ready for a first demo
  • Prepared patch for also publishing JSON dumps with bzip2 compression
  • Further improved edit summaries we show on Wikipedia etc
  • Prepared for giving Wikispecies, Meta and Mediawiki access to the sitelinks on Wikidata on 20. of October
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Liz, will you let me know why specifically the content on the Spireon page was unacceptable and deleted? Lambao.truong (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lambao.truong,

Typically with speedy deletions like this, an editor tags the article for deletion and then an administrator deletes the article. I deleted the article based on a CSD G4 tag which is recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, specifically, it was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spireon that the article should be deleted.

What I recommend to you if you want to write an article on this subject is to work on it in your sandbox (User:Lambao.truong/Sandbox). Sandboxes are for creating articles and are not subject to speedy deletion unless there are certain concerns like copyright infringements.

Also, when you believe you have established notability of the subject using reliable sources, submit it to Articles for Creation which will review the article for you. If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. I hope this helps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the new editor trying to write about "the Google story"

Can you contact the instructor of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Ontario Institute of Technology/New Media Theory and Practice (Fall) and explain to them what is happening, so that they can give their students proper guidance so they may have a positive experience editing Wikipedia? I think the best advice is to help them find a niche that hasn't already been covered, and make sure they have the training and tools necessary to do research and find good sources about the topic. Thanks. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Wbm1058. The whole Google story project has gone through so many re-titlings, redirects and page moves, it's a challenge to follow what has happened. I'm heading out right now but I will try to contact the instructor later today. Thanks for the suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm back at my computer, Wbm1058. I looked over the instructor's (Jaobar) edits and they seem to be on top of the class situation. I just hope all of the talk pages messages we left the editor weren't too confusing! Often the best advice to give a new editor who is doing lots of article creation and page moves is simply, Slow down! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wbm1058 and User:Liz, thank you for looking into the situation so quickly (and so politely). My students are supposed to only be working in their sandboxes. I have addressed the majority of instances where this instruction was not followed. I've been doing this sorta thing in class since 2011, so I'm used to addressing these sorts of issues. Thanks again for your help and your patience. Sincerely --Jaobar (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor working on the Google article had several pages deleted, Jaobar, let me know if they would like to recover the content. If they are upset at the deletion, we can put it in their sandbox but, honestly, sometimes it's better to start from scratch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we're good to go User:Liz. I'll let you know if I hear any complaints. --Jaobar (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What anti-semitism?

Including facts about Freud's opinion that Jews are suprerior to other people is not anti-semitism. It is explicitly POV for you to delete something just because you don't like it even if it is true.VivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)