Jump to content

User talk:Liz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evildoer187 (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 6 May 2014 (→Hi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'tis the spring season!




This page was last edited or modified by Evildoer187 (talk).



Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
The Signpost
19 October 2024
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.



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

Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Always impressed by your level-headed input at ANI. Just what it needs. Keep up the good stuff that you do on here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, Dr. Blofeld, what a surprise! I try not to be reactive in AN/I discussions which can get heated and veer away from the OP's complaint. Your gift is much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on DS

Hi Liz I saw your comments and questions about DS. I'm running off now, but maybe tomorrow I might comment here about some thoughts on DS given my somewhat varied and inconsistent experiences. The system doesn't work very well, perhaps discussion can help clarify.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Littleolive oil, my main issue is the confusion surrounding DS, who can give warnings, whether they are considered official or unofficial, what "uninvolved" really means, etc. Hopefully, the current conversation that's going on will clarify things. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my concerns too. What I've found is that there is great inconsistency even among admins and arbs on how DS is implemented and what the parameters are. I see that you have it in hand though so won't post further. Best wishes.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Just curious: by DS you mean discretionary sanctions, not deletion sorting or defaultsort, right? — HHHIPPO 06:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :O}(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, if that wasn't clear, HHHIPPO, DS=Discretionary sanctions in this instance. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your message/grammar of a new article

I appreciate that you have advised regarding two accounts working on the same article.

As you have seen in my userpage, I'm a native Russian speaker. Could you please check the article UE Boom for any grammar/structure mistakes, and advise upon improvements that I could implement. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is simpler to just correct any obvious mistakes I see...if I notice any substantial changes that would improve the article, I'll let you know on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to post my advice on your talk page instead. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. When SPI archive links don't show up, such as here, you don't actually need to edit the page to fix it; simply purge the page cache and the link will appear. Just thought I'd let you know! Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ɐuɐʞsǝp, I'm not really sure about "page purging". This was an SPI case that was not brand new. I didn't understand why the Archive link didn't show up when I was checking out the page so I first tried adding the link and then discovered that I didn't need to do that, a simple edit would cause it to appear. Now, I know I can "purge" and I'll try to figure out what that means before doing any future edits. But I have made only a handful of edits to the SPI area so you will not see me there very often! Thanks for the correction though. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Purging a page is basically asking the servers to rebuild it from the current contents of the database, instead of showing you whatever version is handiest, which they tend to do when they‘re overloaded. One way is to copy the Edit (or History) link for the page, paste it into your browser’s navigation field, change the “&action=edit” (or“&action=history”) to “&action=purge” and hit Return. There are also Gadgets you can activate in your preferences that will add a purge button or link to every page.—Odysseus1479 06:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #104

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

Thanks!

Liz, I wholeheartedly appreciate your response at the arbitration talk page. It was very kind of you to help. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, MarshalN20...I'm not sure that I helped much because you knew about the case I referred you to. In my experience, posts on Arbitration talk pages don't result in action, at best a clerk or arbitrator will say a word to clarify an existing case, but they won't launch a new investigation based on talk page comments. I hope you received a fair response, I haven't checked back to look at the Argentine history case. Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Another user has suggested me to keep quiet while the arbitrator's deliberate. I plan to take heed of that suggestion, and will also keep in mind your recommendation. The Argentine history case is weird, perhaps even more-so because it seems me getting a topic ban probation for a year is not enough to quell others from burning straw mans in effigy of me. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have my share of editors who are not too fond of me and I've found the best course of action is not to overreact. Some editors have buttons that are easily pushed and they hold on to grudges that go far beyond whatever the initial disagreement was about. While there are a couple long-time editors whose emotional reactions are given a pass, usually going on the attack or being overly quick to take offense over what is simply a disagreement is viewed very poorly by admins.
Keep a level head, let most of the crap slide off your back and focus on working on articles on subjects that really interest you. If you find an editor tracking your edits, give it some time to be sure (at least a week) and then post the incident at AN/I (with diffs) and sit back and let other people weigh in. Editors who have no allies are at a disadvantage in these discussions so be sure not to burn any bridges and when given an opportunity, help other people out. My two cents. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words, Liz; wise words, indeed. Nevertheless, I must admit that eight months of having this slide off my back is starting to leave mark (and a very dirty stain along the tracks).
Perhaps what worries me the most is that this will spill-over into my everyday life. Academic dishonesty is a very harsh accusation, both here in the project as well as in my profession.
Maybe I should just change my username to something more cryptic. As much as I agree with Eric's point that it would be better for the project to be less anonymous, the backlash can be great when dealing with mudslinging problems.
I appreciate the advice. I'll maintain inner peace. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the problem has been going on for so long. Then this is definitely a situation that deserves intervention by an admin or via mediation. Sorry for the spill-over. :/ Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Geography of Christmas

Hi Liz,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue! Geography of Christmas is not a metaphor; it is a more direct statement of what the article entails than "Christmas worldwide" as the article explains how Christmas traditions differ geographically; the main Christmas article is already about "Christmas worldwide". Another user has already initiated a discussion on the subject of this article's title here, where I have explained my position in greater detail. I would welcome your contributions there.

Neelix (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It looks like the discussion has been moved here, which is a better location for the discussion anyway. See you there! Neelix (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milk (How I Met Your Mother), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AR Notification

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #105

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

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Arbitration request declined

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

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

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

Why are you acting hostile?

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

This Month in Education: April 2014



Headlines

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

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

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

Category:Articles about possible neologisms from March 2014

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

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

Category:American women philosophers

Category:American women philosophers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised, Obi-Wan Kenobi? Just a continuing crusade against gender-based categories. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm yeah, like yours [1], or your crusade against jews being from Middle East, or your crusade to vote keep for all gendered cats no matter how much they violate our guidelines. Be fair Liz -- cats are created by individuals but they are kept or deleted by consensus, I'm just putting them forward to the community, and the community has agreed with me 95% of the time. There are also thousands of gendered cats that I will never touch and that I have actually expanded and added hundreds of women or men to. So please lay off the rhetoric and use of the word crusade, it's uncalled for and misplaced and wrong . I go after cats that violate guidelines, whether gendered, LGBT, race-based, not defining, subjective, etc. I have a special focus on non -diffusing cats since those make it sometimes too easy to ghettoize. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that , not surprisingly, this category has already ghettoized 35 women philosophers. Remember what happened when one woman novelist got ghettoized ?-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liz, sometimes when I nominate a gender- or ethnicity-based cat for deletion, you oppose and accuse me of trying to dismantle the whole "women" tree. Let's turn the tables and allow me to understand clearly your POV. Do you believe that for every neutral category of people X, we should create a category of "Women X"? If not, in what cases should we NOT create "Women X", and in what cases *should* we? For example, we have a category Category:Embalmers, with 5 people in it. Should we create a category Category:Women embalmers below it? If so, why? If not, why not? There are 195 subcats of Category:People by occupation, but only 104 "Women by occupation" and only 22 "Men by occupation". Should we have 195 top-level cats for women and 195 top-level cats for men? I'm trying to figure out where your line in the sand is, since it's obviously different than mine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

Wikidata weekly summary #106

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

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #107

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

Escrituras

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

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

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2014

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

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Jerry Pepsi

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

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

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #108

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

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

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

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

May 2014

Do not remove my comments, as you have done here [2]. If you do it again, action will be taken.

Regards,

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicolas Wright, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IFC, Superstorm and The Wild Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and an FYI

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

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

Hi

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&oldid=607266569"