User talk:Liz
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 |
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!
![]() |
---|
14 August 2024 |
|
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Lolcat2.jpg/220px-Lolcat2.jpg)
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!
Don't call names, you qualling half-faced 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 impertinent half-faced vassal.
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)
Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jose de Segovia Barron
Hi Liz,
Maybe I wasn't able to prove the relevance of this writer but please let me try again saying that there's no person with such relevance on Protestant community in Spain than Jose de Segovia Barron. He is probably the Spanish alternative of CS Lewis on United Kingdom or Francis Schaeffer on United States and it's also relevant for English speaking community because he studied and he is even teaching in Welwyn, UK. Why if Lewis and Shaeffer has a Wikipedia page, this Spanish writer can't start its page?
What about a more structure page like this?:
José de Segovia Barrón (Madrid, 1964) is a Spanish teacher, journalist & theologian. He studied Journalism on Universidad Complutense, (Madrid), Theology on University of Kampen (Netherlands) and Bible on The School of Biblical Studies Welwyn (England). He is currently leading active students groups as Grupos Bíblicos Universitarios and Unión Bíblica. He was also President of the Theology Department on Alianza Evangélica Española between 2001 and 2015.
He is teaching on the following schools
- The School of Biblical Studies Welwyn, England
- Facultad Internacional de Teología Casteldefels, Spain
- Centro Evangélico de Estudios Bíblicos Barcelona, Spain
- Facultad de Teología Protestante Madrid, Spain
Books
- Bob Dylan (Andamio, 1985)
- El protestantismo en España: Pasado, presente y futuro (CEM/AMECAN, 1997)
- Guerra Espiritual: Una reflexión Crítica (AEE. Barcelona, 1988)
- Una fe para el tercer milenio (Peregrino. Moral de Calatrava, 2002)
- Entrelíneas: Arte y Fe (Consejo Evangélico de Madrid, 2003)
- Ocultismo (Andamio. Barcelona, 2004)
- El príncipe Caspian y la fe de C. S. Lewis (Andamio, 2008)
- Huellas del cristianismo en el cine (Consejo Evangélico de Madrid, 2010)
- El asombro del perdón (Andamio, 2010)
- Evangelio según San Lucas para la Unión Bíblica (CLIE, 2016).
Digital Publications
- Evangelical Focus, including weekly culture reviews since 2015.
- Entrelíneas, including more than 1000 culture reviews & podcast since 2002.
- Radio Encuentro, including weekly radio interviews since 2010.
Personal Life
He is pastor at Iglesia Evangélica Reformada on Madrid, is married with Anna and is father of four kids called Lluvia, Natán, Noé & Edén.
Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pablo, Webmarkez-ca,
- Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines but a place where you can begin is at WP:Golden rule. Your article needs independent reliable secondary sources, as you can no doubt see at CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. The bar is set especially high for academics/professors (see WP:PROF), an article needs to demonstrated that not only has Barrón written books, taught and been a pastor but that others--well-respected writers--have written about him. All claims on Wikipedia need to have verified sources, Wikipedia reports what other publications (newspapers, journals, books, mainstream news organizations, etc.) have covered rather than writing about the editor's opinion (WP:OR).
- Wikipedia has high standards for biographies of living people but if Barrón is truly notable, you should be able to find references about him and his work. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another suggestion I have, Pablo, is to create an article at Draft:José de Segovia Barrón rather than trying to add an article to the mainspace of Wikipedia. User pages and draft pages can hold articles that you can work on over time and are not subject to speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand, thank you!
Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Following your suggestion, I created a new edition of the page including references and sources, as a DRAFT - so it can be leverage before it's pushed online.
Please let me know if it's ok for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Webmarkez-ca/Jose_de_Segovia_Barron
Thank you, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Pablo, I'm just one editor and since you submitted it to Articles for Creation (AfC), another reviewer will take a look at it. The article seems stronger than your original version but Wikipedia prefers prose (paragraphs) over than lists. You also have bare links for your references so I'll try to take a look at those and see if I can help out. AfC has a backlog of cases so it will be a couple of weeks before they get to it but your article has a much better chance of lasting if it goes through the review process. Liz Read! Talk! 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'll add some additional prose including a quote from historian Gabino Fernández Campos, and also a quote from writer Cesar Vidal Manzanares, who already has a Wiki page. Hope it helps. You mean there is a easier way to ask for approval than (AfC)? Could I post it to you? for instance? If it's ok for you it's also ok for me, of course. Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Webmarkez-ca, here's how it works. If you just create an article in mainspace (Wikipedia itself), the article will be reviewed by the New Pages Patrol which quickly look to see if there are any major problems with an article (like copyright violations, nonEnglish articles, gibberish, blank pages or vandalism). Articles that are deemed not up to Wikipedia basic standards are quickly deleted.
- If you submit an article to Articles for Creation, one of their reviewers will look over your article and give suggestions on how it could be improved. They'll either okay it and move it in to the mainspace or return it to you with their suggestions. You can always resubmit your article for review after you've addressed their concerns. Also, you can keep your article in your user or draft space and continue to work on it until you think it's worth submitting. The only problem with AfC is that they ordinarily have a backlog of several weeks so it can take a while until your article is reviewed. Wikipedia takes a long view and values accuracy over speed but if you find yourself frustrated by the wait, you can get started working on your next article.
- I don't review new articles for AfC so you will be reviewed by another volunteer editor here. But I can help clean up the references which I'll get to later today, if that's okay. If you have specific editing questions, I recommend you visit either the Teahouse or the Help Desk where there are very friendly people who can address your questions. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Liz, thank you very much. I did the reference hard work, thank you very much for your effort and offer to complete it. I am not totally new on Wikipedia but obviously there was a evolution since then and it is more "demanding" now, right? I will try to publish through "New Pages Patrol" if you don't mind since I would like to start working on a new page in my life if it's possible :)
Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's your call, Webmarkez-ca, but, please, keep a copy of your article in your Sandbox or user space in case this article gets deleted. It would be a shame to have to start it over from scratch.
- Good luck! I'll look for the article later and see if there is any way I can help. It's a national holiday here in the U.S. which is why my editing is sporadic today. Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It's your Independence Day, right?
I already posted the page as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_de_Segovia ...
Thank you very much again and have a great holiday today!
Best, Pablo
Webmarkez-ca (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 July 2015
- News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF
- In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology
- WikiProject report: Able to make a stand
- Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.
- Traffic report: We're Baaaaack
- Technology report: Technical updates and improvements
Wikidata weekly summary #165
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Wikidata-logo-en.svg/150px-Wikidata-logo-en.svg.png)
- Discussions
- Discussion about Atheism and the religion property.
- Discussion about the Verifiability of data as a policy.
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Upcoming: Wikimania. There will be several talks and workshops related to Wikidata. Say hi at the "Ask Us Anything" session for Wikidata if you're there.
- Other Noteworthy Stuff
- A new database report lists people categorized as dead in Wikipedia, but lacking Property:P570 (date of death). It's updated several times during the day. There are about 20 to 30 new entries each day. There is currently some backlog from the Arabic, Marathi, and Thai Wikipedias. Items updated first in Wikidata wont appear in the report. They are listed directly in Wikidata's recent deaths report.
- Did you know?
- Newest properties: RSL editions, Open Hub ID, number of children, MovieMeter movie identifier, MovieMeter director ID
- Development
- Adam wrote a blog post on the improvement of the data after one year and GeneaWiki
- After the next deployment, Special:ItemDisambiguation will match aliases and be case insensitive.
- Improved details of matches in the entity suggester (wbsearchentities api module)
- Deployed the WikibaseQuality and WikibaseQualityConstraints extensions to test.wikidata.org
- Fixed the layout of long qualifier names
- JSON dumps are now automatically copied to labs
- Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
Messianic Judaism
I'm not able to discover much about the "Criticism" section in the Manual of Style. I cannot recall ever seeing such a section in a WP article. I thought I would attach a YouTube link to a practitioner who explains their personal experience. The only contribution under the "Criticism" section is a blog. How can a text blog be more solid in terms of reliability than a video blog? Is the Criticism section a consensus matter of WP editors? What is its purpose? The sole contribution under the section is negative. After your edit the section gives undue weight methinks. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Church of the Rain, I apologize for not seeing your comment until now. It's an essay, not policy, but Wikipedia:Criticism might provide some guidance on whether or how a Criticism section is incorporated into an article. As for including a link to a YouTube, that is generally discouraged unless the channel is that of a news organization; you can find more information at the essay Wikipedia:Video links. Liz Read! Talk! 11:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Kitten_%2806%29_by_Ron.jpg/150px-Kitten_%2806%29_by_Ron.jpg)
Thank you again!
Webmarkez-ca (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
- The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
- the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
- the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
help make again deleted page
hey. LIz , thanks for your guidance, my article Public School Hyderabad was deleted kindly help to make it again with sufficient data.--Jogi don (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)--Jogi don (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it was deleted, in part, because it had no independent secondary sources and very little information about it at all. You might be in a better position to locate local sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) than I. If there isn't any additional information that can be used to identify this school, rather than just its name, any future article may also be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Wikipedia_Library_owl.svg/110px-Wikipedia_Library_owl.svg.png)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: Proposals for a Palestinian state
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added Goalie1998 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your input
Dear Liz it is good, that you took a moment to write a comment on my talk page in your own words! I appreciate that! You got a response. --Miraclexix (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Happy editing
... so you said to an editor who can't even edit the talk page? - Happy editing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you tell me where I said this? Liz Read! Talk! 11:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- User talk:Technical 13 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see. That phrase is included as part of the template that Twinkle posts with every page that is tagged for a CSD. I tagged the page to be deleted and Twinkle added an entry to my CSD log and notifies the creator of the page. This page has been saved so I'll undo that message. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I felt badly that I could be so insensitive so I'm glad it was part of the template, not a message I'd written. Liz Read! Talk! 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for making you feel bad, - I probably should have guessed that it was part of a template. Perhaps these templates could be a little bit more flexible, - with a variable depending on the mood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's okay. It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly. Liz Read! Talk! 12:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Same when notifying editors that they were "ArbCommed" - a new phrase on my talk, - your turn as a clerk to improve that. Btw, did you see my suggestions in the workshop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have to take a look at the ArbCom templates and scrutinize the wording to see if improvements could be made. It is typical though to solicit feedback from the clerks email list before making any changes to pages that are part of the arbitration process.
- I haven't looked at your suggestions in the workshop phase because there are three other clerks assigned to this case while I am minding the Kww/The Rambling Man one. But now that you've brought it to my attention, I'll look it over. There have been moments I have thought of adding my own two cents to this case but decided the wiser course was to remain uninvolved. There are enough editors who have either participated at AE or been impacted by its decisions who probably have more relevant points of view to add to the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 12:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I added my perspective from having been cited to AE and seeing others cited for almost nothing, and think it's a waste of potential, - I am known for dreams, AE not needed is one ;) - I believe the GGTF case was not needed to begin with which makes the resulting restrictions even more grotesque. - Back to content, perhaps I manage a third DYK nom (all women) on top of a GAN, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's been a nice surprise to me how often conflict can be resolved through discussion...or at least, one can come to an understanding with an editor one has a disagreement with. There are some policies like BLP and copyright where there is little room for debate. And an unfortunate number of editors who see the simplest solution in a content disputes is a topic ban rather than a compromise. We have dispute resolution but I don't think it is being utilized as fully as it should be. Liz Read! Talk! 12:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I added my perspective from having been cited to AE and seeing others cited for almost nothing, and think it's a waste of potential, - I am known for dreams, AE not needed is one ;) - I believe the GGTF case was not needed to begin with which makes the resulting restrictions even more grotesque. - Back to content, perhaps I manage a third DYK nom (all women) on top of a GAN, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Same when notifying editors that they were "ArbCommed" - a new phrase on my talk, - your turn as a clerk to improve that. Btw, did you see my suggestions in the workshop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's okay. It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly. Liz Read! Talk! 12:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for making you feel bad, - I probably should have guessed that it was part of a template. Perhaps these templates could be a little bit more flexible, - with a variable depending on the mood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see. That phrase is included as part of the template that Twinkle posts with every page that is tagged for a CSD. I tagged the page to be deleted and Twinkle added an entry to my CSD log and notifies the creator of the page. This page has been saved so I'll undo that message. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I felt badly that I could be so insensitive so I'm glad it was part of the template, not a message I'd written. Liz Read! Talk! 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- User talk:Technical 13 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly.
LOL. You never ran civility patrol on him? He made a habit of denying protected edit requests, and then signing with "Happy editing". Looks like you'll be the subject of the 3rd high-profile crat-chat in recent memory. Good luck. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases CSD nomination
Please exercise more caution in the future as the page above is a Test case used for verifying that the proposed changes to a template aren't going to break anything if they are promoted to mainspace. I'll post a very generic reminder to WT:AFC about these exceptions. Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hasteur, that file was listed in the G13 eligible category. I don't know how it came to be included in the due-to-be-deleted category.THIS was the file that I saw listed. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The page showed up in the G13 eligible category because the page hadn't been edited in 6 months and had the AFC submission template on it. It's up to you as an editor who is looking at the page to use discretion and realize that the page did not really need to be nominated (a simple registered edit would take it out of the category). If you can't be bothered to exercise caution in nominating pages, I will be forced to seek consensus as to how we should resolve this. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your explanation about the page. But mistakes are allowed. If you think because of this one incorrect tagging I should be brought to a noticeboard, well, please let me know where this discussion is taking place. Liz Read! Talk! 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The page showed up in the G13 eligible category because the page hadn't been edited in 6 months and had the AFC submission template on it. It's up to you as an editor who is looking at the page to use discretion and realize that the page did not really need to be nominated (a simple registered edit would take it out of the category). If you can't be bothered to exercise caution in nominating pages, I will be forced to seek consensus as to how we should resolve this. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Just between ourselves, Liz, I wrote the Simple diff and link guide; it was freaking me out that there was no reasonable info for newbies. They kept being told to give diffs, but not how. HELP:DIFF is just a nightmare. And then I was forced to also create the Complete diff and link guide, just to have somewhere to move all the extra stuff that the nerds rushed to add. ("Or even better, you can do <incomprehensible incomprehensible incomprehensible>" which has the advantage of <insert baffling technical term here>".) It works quite well to have both levels, because naturally the nerds wouldn't like to be simply reverted. There's a "simplest guide", too. I wrote that for my mother. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
- Yes, Bishonen, I remember being completely baffled when editors would ask me for a diff...it sounds like they wanted to borrow a cigarette. Once you know how it's done, it's easy. But I think I even had to look it up in the the Wikipedia Glossary to find out what the term meant but the glossary doesn't tell the editor how to create one! Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I seek guidance from you in regard to proper cooperation in WP
Dear Liz, I feel the need for help and guidance. It results from certain edit related matters I became involved in, the last days. This does not mean that I would need help in getting a certain agenda through, be it far from me, but rather would like to have an adoptee (does one say so? a tutor?) or some equivalent help, or simply a person who helps in a more agreed upon relationship for help. I recognized, that your help on the teahouse for me was in deed the work of a 'guardian angel', because I detected that you in fact do a lot of edits in Wikipedia: (WP:). All fine in that regard. I also assume that you, very likely, have a lot to do. If you do not have the time to help me out, please direct me to a helpful person you know could help me. --Miraclexix (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Miraclexix,
- I think some mentoring would be a great idea for you and there are some places on Wikipedia designed just for that purpose. Wikipedia:Co-op is a new pilot program to match new editors with volunteer mentors and I think they are evaluating the program right now. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is a program that has been around a lot longer...it has some nice resources available on the Adoptees page but I'm not sure how active the program currently is. You should probably investigate both of them. Alternatively, you could just see who has signed up on either program as a mentor and contact them directly on their talk page (see Wikipedia:Co-op/Featured mentors for the Co-op and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters for Adopt-a-user).
- Of course, if you have a specific question, the Teahouse and Help Desk are handy or you could ask me and maybe I can help. I was also going to direct you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory but I see that you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel so you are familiar with that project. WikiProjects vary in their level of activity and responsiveness so try others (there are hundreds of WikiProjects!) on related subjects and you might get a quicker response. They can be a great place to ask for help or get a second opinion.
- It's easy to get discouraged editing Wikipedia when you are working on contentious subjects where every edit can be challenged. I find it a relief to vary my editing activity...sometimes I work on articles, other times I visit a noticeboard or the Teahouse, there is always vandalism to undo, I can review pending changes or spend some time categorizing articles or Wikipedia pages. When you have what seems like an intractable conflict with another editor, it's best to either discuss it on the article talk page, look into dispute resolution or just take a break and work on another editing project, especially on a different topic that you are also interested in. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- For sure it helps, has to :) Thank you! --Miraclexix (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from June 2015
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg/80px-Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg.png)
- These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution
- Securing access to Wikimedia sites with HTTPS
- 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Wikipedia
- Record featured article author recommends five Wikipedia articles
- How English Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition
- Preserving Wikipedia citations for the future: Geoffrey Bilder
Speedy deletion nomination
Liz, don't you think having released records on a major record label and being included in a recently-released, genre-specific bound history of music book about music released 70 years ago would be enough assertion of importance to have avoided a speedy deletion nomination? We're not talking about some no-name drum-n-bass bozo living in his mother's basement releasing music on a self published pseudo-label between X cycles pumped up by his high-school fanbois. The Dissident Aggressor 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- DissidentAggressor, I wouldn't tag Danny Winchell for speedy deletion today now that you have basically rewritten the article from scratch and CSD do not apply now. But as the article existed then, there was no indication of sufficient notability to be included as an article in Wikipedia. I'm glad you were able to find additional references to build up this article into a more substantial biography although third party independent sources should be utilized rather than Winchell's website. It's a much stronger article than before but still WP:MUSICBIO sets a pretty high standard for inclusion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question, perhaps because you misunderstood its nature. WP:MUSICBIO has nothing to do with CSD#A7. You should know that. If an article asserts any credible claim of significance or importance it should not be subject to CSD#A7. The Dissident Aggressor 12:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I know that WP:MUSICBIO doesn't apply to speedy deletions. I was saying that the article, in its current, revised state, I would not tag as a speedy deletion but it still has to meet WP:MUSICBIO standards for notability now and the article could be vulnerable at an AfD discussion. I stand by my original decision for an A7 for the version of this article I saw which was later confirmed by Kudpung who moved it to a Draft article space because you wished to continue working on it. You improved the article a lot so I'm not sure why you are arguing about a older version I tagged when there have been 30 intervening edits between then and the current version. It was 549 bytes then and it is 4,290 now so it was very different version. Liz Read! Talk! 13:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about the current version? I'm talking about the version you speedied and IMHO should not have, given the importance asserted. The Dissident Aggressor 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go so far as to say that my moving the article to Draft space was an endorsement of the A7 tag. It was actually moved there at the creator's request to restore it to userspace. However, I would have felt that if such an article were in mainspace in its nascent cast, it wouldn't be long before someone CSD tagged it. AFAICS DissidentAggressor, Liz did give you five whole hours to do something about it, so I don't really see the need for this discussion at all, nor for the agressive tone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, sorry for going so far, Kudpung! I think what is ultimately important is that it is a stronger article than it was before so I'm glad you moved it into userspace and DissidentAggressor improved upon it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I know that WP:MUSICBIO doesn't apply to speedy deletions. I was saying that the article, in its current, revised state, I would not tag as a speedy deletion but it still has to meet WP:MUSICBIO standards for notability now and the article could be vulnerable at an AfD discussion. I stand by my original decision for an A7 for the version of this article I saw which was later confirmed by Kudpung who moved it to a Draft article space because you wished to continue working on it. You improved the article a lot so I'm not sure why you are arguing about a older version I tagged when there have been 30 intervening edits between then and the current version. It was 549 bytes then and it is 4,290 now so it was very different version. Liz Read! Talk! 13:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question, perhaps because you misunderstood its nature. WP:MUSICBIO has nothing to do with CSD#A7. You should know that. If an article asserts any credible claim of significance or importance it should not be subject to CSD#A7. The Dissident Aggressor 12:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Reverting foreign sources
Please don't revert changes to articles simply because they are in a non-English language. Google Translate is available. It suffices in instances in which you wish to investigate a claim/source. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Willhesucceed, can you be more specific? Which article are you speaking of? Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- In Voat, you reverted a change I made based on a Finnish news source. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see now, thank you for the reference. What I said in the edit summary was
Please provide some information about this source on the article talk page
which was really a question about the reliability of the source. I did use Google Translate to look at the text of the source but I thought it didn't strongly support the statement made. Torchiest identified it as being the website of a mainstream Finnish newspaper, Ilta-Sanomat which is really the information I was looking for. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see now, thank you for the reference. What I said in the edit summary was
- In Voat, you reverted a change I made based on a Finnish news source. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
ARBCOM question
Hi, Liz - I have prepared an ARBCOM case but it contains some sensitive material, and is longer than 500 words (closer to 1400). I think some of the information may require a private hearing. What should I do? Atsme📞📧 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Atsme,
- If privacy is a concern, please read the information at User:Arbitration Committee and either email the arbitrators' list through Wikipedia or use the email address listed there to send them a message. Be patient for a response as the weekend is coming up but know that your message will be seen. If you don't hear back from an arbitrator within a week, post a message at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and it wouldn't hurt if you pinged some arbitrators so they'd be sure to see it. I hope this helps. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Atsme📞📧 21:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm glad I could help. Let me know if you have any questions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Liz - would mentioning the email on their TP serve as a ping? Atsme📞📧 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I was suggesting you do if you hadn't heard back from an arbitrator in a week or so. I don't know how much the email list will be monitored on a Saturday in the summer. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Liz - would mentioning the email on their TP serve as a ping? Atsme📞📧 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm glad I could help. Let me know if you have any questions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Atsme📞📧 21:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 July 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation annual plan released, news in brief
- In the media: Wikimania warning; Wikipedia "mystery" easily solved
- Traffic report: The Empire lobs back
- Featured content: Pyrénées, Playmates, parliament and a prison...
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Please check the native language wiki where one exists. Take a look at ko:변희재, including the references and let me know whether you'd still consider nominating the article after that. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that Google translate is inadequate to assessing that article, whom Google says is about Byeon hui jae, not Byon Hee-jae. A small error in translation (the birth dates are the same after all) but I don't believe Google translate is sufficient to fully assess an article in a language one doesn't understand except to acknowledge that the article does exist and one can see how developed it is.
- When I did a Google news search on Byon Hee-jae I found nothing but a search for Byun Hee-jae brought up some newstories where there was a one sentence (or partial sentence) quote but I found no coverage about him. Fuebaey found some better English language references than I did but I thought the mentions were still pretty marginal.
- I don't see AfD as a quick path to deletion but an opportunity to review and assess a weak article that hasn't received much attention from editors. I don't see this nomination as a mistake because with new references, the article might become more than a one sentence stub. Liz Read! Talk! 10:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
About that sock
I am sorry if I came across as being a bit unkind, and your response is a good one (that is, that you had had interactions with the account and were trying to understand the situation). There is a RL name linked to the "sockmaster" (I have no opinion as to whether or not that RL name is correct), but given the nature of the last few edits (the nature of which I always take as being sincere) I thought it the better part of valour not to link them to an account which could quickly lead to the purported RL name. In fact, another admin and I were going to split the blocks to further dilute the linkage, but it looks like the other admin didn't block the other account, and I'll probably have to do it. Technically it's not *quite* a block evasion, but the user was under sanctions to operate only one account with no (apparently intentional) logged out editing, and wasn't following that, plus the other stuff. Risker (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Risker, that seems like a sensible response and I can understand your decision-making process. I looked at recent edits at the Reference Desk and just have to shake my head. Wikipedia is not therapy and I don't think editing here was helping either the editor or the project.
- I appreciate your apology but it's not necessary. I often have questions when I don't understand the rationale that underlies decisions and at times I fail to realize that it can look like I'm challenging another editor. My desire to understand doesn't overrule privacy concerns and considerations for what is best for all parties concerned. Again, thanks for taking the time to explain the situation to me. It's much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Question about "involved"
Who all should be listed in involved - I'm a bit confused on that part. Atsme📞📧 01:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have your complaint in front of me but I assume Jytdog and DGG, those names stuck out to me. But, basically, if you are asking the arbitrators to look at an editor's conduct, you need to inform that editor of a complaint, just like on AN/I. Failure to do this, to hear at least two sides of the issue, can cause the arbitrators to decline a case request. They need not to just hear from you but from those you are in conflict with, so they can judge whether this is a case that is intractable that needs their attention. Whether those editors are "involved parties" can be determined if the case is accepted. But I would assume by your comments that Jytdog is definitely an involved party. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I added all the names who I mentioned in the case. Only a few are the ones with the issues, not all. Was I not supposed to add all of them? I also screwed up the template. *sigh* Do I just leave as is? This is not a happy area to be in to begin with and it was exhaustive to say the least. I know it's over the limit of words, but there are different elements involved and there's no other way to introduce them. It's not just about COIN abuse. There 3 aspects of it and they are intertwined. Atsme📞📧 02:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #166
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Wikidata-logo-en.svg/150px-Wikidata-logo-en.svg.png)
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Slides on Primary Sources Tool and Wikidata introduction (in Spanish) for the Donostia-San Sebastián Wikidata Editathon
- Presentation about Wikidata at the Axel Springer Hack Day 2015
- Other Noteworthy Stuff
- Wikiresearch looked into the coverage of the moon by geotags in Wikidata
- Wikiresearch published a visualization of the relationship between nationality and occupation based on Wikidata's data
- Which zoo has polar bears? Wikidata attempts to answer the question here. Work in progress.
- Did you know?
- Newest properties: MCN code, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Anime News Network anime ID, Anime News Network manga ID, Anime News Network company ID, Anime News Network person ID, FSK film rating, PolSys ID, Righteous Among The Nations ID, USDA NDB number, lesarchivesduspectacle ID, INEGI locality identifier
- Development
- The Wikidata Quality extension (constraint reports per item) was deployed. You can now use d:Special:ConstraintReport to see the result for different items. This is for example the constraint report for the item cat (Q142).
- 8 million additional statements from Freebase were made available through the Primary sources tool
- Moving towards having a single edit button to edit references along with the value they belong to.
- Bene continued working on phasing out the deprecated Entity superclass and making more entity types possible.
- More work on phasing out a deprecated serializer implementation we still use in certain places.
- Further work on the new RDF export.
- PHPCS is now used on each change in Wikibase to ensure the code fulfils certain code quality standards.
- Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
FYI
Just for your interest, GingerBreadHarlot came back both with IP addresses and a sock account.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. An obscene racist comment was removed from the sock's talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 12
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
- Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
- Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
- American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 July 2015
- Op-ed: On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
- Traffic report: Belles of the ball
- WikiProject report: What happens when a country is no longer a country?
- News and notes: The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania
- Featured content: When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
"hab" one comment off
My comment at 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC), directed at Guy, was a quite civil comment, directly related to the topic, and unrelated to the exchange between me and The Rambling Man. I think your "hab" is placed one message too low in this edit. —Kww(talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I realized that at the time, I just thought I'd include that whole section. But since you object, I'll move the hat section up. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Albert Eutropius
Hello Liz
You've just had an article deleted about a sportsman who played at the highest level for his country. That the admin deleted it is surprising, since A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance"; and it had a proper reference and everything. It is one of a series of articles that is linked from the List of international rugby union players killed in World War I.
I'm going to have it recreated and I'll be turning it into a full article, as I have for Albert Downing and Henry Dewar; Billy Geen and Frank Tarr were Start class but they've just been classified as Good articles. In the meantime, you might come across some other stubs linked from that list. Please don't go CSDing them!
With kind regards
FunkyCanute (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the goal, FunkyCanute, is to have strong articles. I'm glad you are recreating it and making it a better article than it was. He was young when he died but perhaps he did accomplish something notable in the years that he had. I will absolutely not CSD it as I think it is always better to have a fresh set of eyes look over new articles. I look forward to reading it though! Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just playing rugby for France meets WP:RU/N, even if it is a stub. No need to have done any more, like give up his life. But seriously, I am working on over 130 articles, the vast majority of which are currently stubs, and I'd be really grateful if you didn't ask for them to be deleted, since they are all for players that meet the rugby union biography notability criteria. A quick click on 'What links here' will show links from the List that I mentioned earlier as well as from the project page that I've set up. TTFN FunkyCanute (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Must have been a screw up from AWB. I listed it for AFD so I don't know why I'd remove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought it was strange, Ricky81682, since you nominated it. Those automated tools can trip you up! I tried Stiki a long time ago and had so many errors, I quickly gave it up. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #167
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Wikidata-logo-en.svg/150px-Wikidata-logo-en.svg.png)
- Discussions
- Open request for adminship: Nikki
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Right now: Wikimania
- Other Noteworthy Stuff
- Magnus made some new tools:
- list of scientists on Wikidata born after 1950 with no image, grouped by employer. Check your university!
- list of scientists on Wikidata born after 1950 with no ORCID iD, grouped by employer. Ditto!
- an InfoBitt replacement
- a tool you can use to match up Wikipedia articles without an item to either an existing item or a create a new one if none exists
- plus Mix'N'Match got new datasets you can help match up with Wikidata
- P2000 was created.
- Some presentations at Wikimania related to Wikidata have detailed slides online:
- WikiProject Sum of All Paintings
- Templates are dead! Long live templates!, technical presentation on the function and future of template syntax
- Future of structured documents: VisualEditor, Citations and Wikidata, oh my!
- Magnus made some new tools:
- Did you know?
- Newest properties: CPDL ID, UNESCO language status, UCI code, Facebook Places ID, parliament.uk bio link, medical specialty, AllMusic composition ID, TeX string, Plazi ID, LPSN URL, species kept, Encyclopaedia Metallum artist ID, Delarge ID
- New task forces: Linguistics
- Development
- Attending Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City right now, meeting awesome people that already use or want to know everything about Wikidata.
- After the next deployment, redirects will be automatically created when merging items.
- Special:UnconnectedPages can now be queried via the query API, thanks to Ladsgroup.
- Migrating away from an older serializer to the DataModel Serialization component.
- Worked on a new time parser that can parse formats like M/D/Y, Y M D and so on.
- Fixed a bug where a value could not be edited when save failed.
- Made the snak type, badge and rank selectors position themselves after resizing the browser window and introduced a possibility to collapse the sitelinks sections.
- Worked on a change in editing to be able to edit a statement and it’s references in one step.
- Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
HELP
No space on Talk page to leave message---stumbled on this space by accident? Should you have said on your New Section Editing User Talk page ? Having difficulty comprehending Wikipedia systems68.3.147.32 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- You have to make new space when you post a new comment. I answered your inquiry on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
RfAr question
Liz, in an RfAr, uninvolved admin's comments area I had provided some diffs. I would like to know what the protocol/requirement is for notifying the makers of those edits and/or the the editors whose talk pages those edits are on. I'd asked Doug Weller, but he wasn't sure and given the more recent notes on that request he held that the question was moot anyway, but I'd like to know for any future events (a light browsing did not seem to shed any light). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- SpacemanSpiff, well, in practice, editors commenting in a case request discussion usually link any diffs to the username so the editor will be pinged (as long as the comments are saved in one edit and you sign the comments).
- But you can also just post a short, neutral note on the editors' talk page along the lines of "This is a note to let you know you've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen in case you wish to respond." As long as you are not advocating that an editor come to a case request page and present a particular point of view, it is not canvassing, just informing the editor they have been mentioned.
- I hope this addresses your question. Let me know if you have additional questions. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I'm not going to do it here as the case it's going to move to ARCA anyway, but I'll keep that in mind for future reference. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kww vs TRM
Is there any reason why the workshop hasn't been closed yet? The same was true of the evidence phase, so much so that other evidence was added after its closure time. Is this normal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there are two answers to that, The Rambling Man. The clear cut answer is that we close a phase at the end of the day, UTC time. So, according to my clock, it's 20:30 pm UTC so the phase is open for another 3 1/2 hours.
- The less clear answer is that clerks typically close a phase after getting the okay from arbitrators on the clerks email list. And because arbitrators and clerks live in different time zones, the phase may not close at 23:59 UTC on the dot but the next day.
- Since I'm the assigned clerk, I'll be up and I'll check in now with the arbitrators and see if they want the phase closed on schedule. Given that this case has progressed without delays, I believe they will say go ahead.
- I hope this answers your questions. If someone rushes in with a great deal of additional content after the deadline passes, we will likely discuss on the email list whether their edits should be reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Liz, appreciate the timely and helpful response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I aim to be helpful. ArbCom cases are generally stressful experiences for everyone, especially in cases when there are unexplained delays. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, the closure of the Workshop phase has been delayed 24 hours due to an editor's request that the arbitrators are honoring. The date for the Proposed Decision will not be changed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I aim to be helpful. ArbCom cases are generally stressful experiences for everyone, especially in cases when there are unexplained delays. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Liz, appreciate the timely and helpful response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Permanent link at ARCA
Hi, Liz. Since Joshua Jonathan actually asked for somebody to fix the link, I've put a permanent link into his statement (without going via a diff, as you did, but of course both ways work fine). I understand that you had a scruple about editing somebody else's statement, but I'm sure he won't mind, and I thought it was better that the link just worked. The page is heavy enough going as it is... Bishonen | talk 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
- Thanks for letting me know, Bishonen, I'll delete my brief statement. I wish there were word limits at ARCA but, alas, I've looked all over and there are none set. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't civility and consideration a general rule of the site, though? I mean, as for the response to Thryduulf's polite request. Not that I care, in this instance. But obviously less TLDR would be to everybody's advantage. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
- You make a good point and I'll ask the arbs on the clerks list. It doesn't mean they will give me an answer but we'll see! Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't civility and consideration a general rule of the site, though? I mean, as for the response to Thryduulf's polite request. Not that I care, in this instance. But obviously less TLDR would be to everybody's advantage. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
Hey.
OK, so there's this page that has been deleted since it's a hoax. It's called "Pīchi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pātī". From the "Rokkuman" in the title and the fact that it was a hoax, I assume it's Mega Man fanon. Do you think I can copy the source over to the Mega Man Fanon Wiki? You can paste the source onto my talk page and I'll do all further actions. Thanks in advance. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll pass. And, by the way, you can't use a Wikia site as a source. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Darn. Can I just have the source for the page to look at? 67.82.89.253 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are asking for. If you want a copy of the deleted article, you should ask the administrator who deleted the page. It should have that information if you go to the deleted page. I'm not an administrator so I can't oblige. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Jackson
Hi Liz. If I'll ever need a second account at Wikipedia, "Joshua Jackson" would be a great name! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, Joshua Jonathan. When I see your name, for some reason, I think of Joshua Jackson. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
KWW vs TRM Case Question
The Workshop phase has closed. When can I make a general comment on the talk page of the proposed decision? --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I know, NeilN, all of the case talk pages are open until the case closes. It's just best if you post your comments in the talk page of the open phase because they are more likely to be seen. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the imposingly empty Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision is fair game? I'm not going to get yelled at for posting there even if no proposed decisions have been posted yet? --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN:, not at all, you will not get yelled at, mainly because I do not yell. Also, there has been little use of the talk pages in this case. Aside from a few outbursts, it's generally been civil.
- The Proposed Decision talk page is to be used to discuss the proposed decision but in practice, I have also seen general comments about the case made there (see the Lightbreather case). The primary guideline is that for the Proposed Decision talk page, we have a policy of each editor posting in their own, devoted section rather than having threaded discussions. If you want to reply to another editor, please do it from your section. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the imposingly empty Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision is fair game? I'm not going to get yelled at for posting there even if no proposed decisions have been posted yet? --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Liz. The case states the outcome should be by the 25th. As this has now passed, do you know when it's going to be resolved? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Lugnuts. July 25th was the estimated time that the proposed decision would be posted by one of the drafters. The proposed decision was posted on Monday, July 27th and since then, the arbitrators have been supporting, opposing or abstaining from each principle, finding of fact and remedy. Most of the proposals have passed but a few are still being debated and not all of the arbitrators have weighed in yet. You will know the decision is finalized when there is a motion to close that receives an absolute majority.
- Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Liz. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On Template:Infobox film it does say under the parameters for starring "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". To be honest I was surprised that both Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey weren't on the poster but I guess their names weren't as big as they were a couple of years later. Quentin X (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Quentin X, you're right, Template:Infobox film is very clear about this. I didn't think to look at the parameter instructions on the template, I just looked for talk page conversation on this subject. I appreciate you pointing this out to me and I'm sorry for sounding a bit annoyed in my comment on your talk page. Whenever I'm reverted, I try to understand the reasons why and in this case, I didn't understand. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Five-million pool
Please do not add any new votes to the Wikipedia:Five-million pool. It has been closed for voting for almost seven years. Pools still open include the Wikipedia:Seven-million pool and all higher number pools. JIP | Talk 20:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't even remember making this edit in February. And, reviewing it now, I'm not sure why I made it but I don't see why I would ever add a further edit to that page. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the other "pools" though. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2015
- From the editor: Change the world
- News and notes: Wikimanía 2016; Lightbreather ArbCom case
- Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015 report, part 1, the plenaries
- Traffic report: The Nerds, They Are A-Changin'
- WikiProject report: Some more politics
- Featured content: The sleep of reason produces monsters
- Gallery: "One small step..."
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic | |
---|---|
![]() ![]() You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Ten Year Society
Hey Liz,
When I set up the Ten Year Society, it was with the intention that eventually other people would start handing out invites - it was only just me doing it before because the idea hadn't taken off yet. Best, — Scott • talk 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Scott: Well, I think it was 2014 when I came across the list you used to maintain about upcoming 10 year anniversaries and I put notices on the talk pages of any editor whose anniversary had already passed. It's only when I recently saw an editor lamenting that he didn't get his invite that I looked for the 10 Year Society page again so I could post an invite to the editor.
- Although I started my original Wikipedia account in 2007, I primarily edited as an IP account for years until I set up this account 2 years ago. I don't know how longtimers would feel about me regularly inviting them to a society for those who have been around at least 10 years! I'm still a young 'un. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Question – Adminship resources
Hi Liz! Does ArbCom keep a succinct list of Admins that have been desysopped "for cause" over the years? (I'm really only interested in numbers vs. time...) I'm asking in reference to this discussion that I am currently having. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause will provide you with the information you need, IJBall. There are several different sections but you can sort by name or date. I wouldn't be surprised though if it wasn't a totally complete list but it would contain those cases where ArbCom took action to desysop an administrator and left a public record of it. There might be other cases which were not made public for privacy reasons or the actions were taken by WMF. It also doesn't include those admins who resigned in the midst of an arbitration case in anticipation that they might be desysoped, they are in the resigned category (Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/resigned) but there is often a note explaining the circumstances of their resignation.
- There is also an interesting list at Wikipedia:List of resysopped users which includes those admins who either resigned or were desysoped and then were resysoped that you might want to take a look at. For some reason, these Wikipedia pages aren't widely known to most editors but I spend a lot of time in project space. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks Liz!! Those are all interesting, especially the last one! (As an aside, it's becoming increasingly clear to me now that I'm soon going to have to create an entirely new subpage, specifically just for the various Admin- and RfA-related links I've collected lately!!)
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @IJBall:, let me know when you do so I can watchlist it. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks Liz!! Those are all interesting, especially the last one! (As an aside, it's becoming increasingly clear to me now that I'm soon going to have to create an entirely new subpage, specifically just for the various Admin- and RfA-related links I've collected lately!!)
It's not finished yet! :)
Just wait until it's finished. Seriously, you're like a kid who sneaks downstairs at 3AM to sneak a peek at his Christmas presents. :-) Serendipodous 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I AM, you have me pegged, Serendipodous! I do sometimes read Signpost articles while they are in draft form. If I might flatter you though, this photo was the only glitch I noted, it looked like a final version to me. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's done now. You can look. Serendipodous 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #168
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Wikidata-logo-en.svg/150px-Wikidata-logo-en.svg.png)
- Discussions
- Successful request for adminship: Nikki
- Open request for oversightership: Sjoerddebruin
- Closed request for comments: Administrative divisions and populated places, Given names and surnames
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Wikidata, coming soon to a menu near you!
- Past: Wikimania
- Other Noteworthy Stuff
- Upload of 4.2M new statements from Freebase in the Primary Sources tool.
- Did you know?
- Newest properties: NALT id, Instagram username, Twitter username, Revised Romanisation, CPDL ID, UNESCO language status, UCI code, Facebook Places ID
- Development
- Continued migrating away from an older serializer to the DataModel Serialization component.
- Released Wikibase DataModel Serialization 1.7.0
- Depreacting the parameter ungroupedlist in the api modules GetClaims and GetEntities
- Tweaking the sitelink input
- Changing the display of item selector results
- 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.
Yahoo mail
I saw your comment at Bbb23's. Are you saying that sending Yahoo->Yahoo works on WP?—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: I can't say that for sure because I haven't sent an email message to another Yahoo! Mail user. I've just talked to some GMail users about the glitch and it occurs when a Yahoo! email comes through Wikipedia rather than through a Yahoo! connection. GMail screens them out. If I have a GMail email address and I send a message while I'm on the Yahoo! Mail site, there is no problem. It's just when you use the "Email this user" on Wikipedia.
- It was very frustrating to me until I was told that some GMail users had identified this problem. I don't send a lot of email messages but when you say, "Did you get my email?" "No", "No", "Try sending it again", "No". It's exasperating. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the bug report. It seems like a general outgoing email problem sending from Wikipedia through Yahoo. There was some mention of Google event before that flagging those Yahoo emails originated from WP as suspicious.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information, Bagumba. I know that the part about not receiving email list messages is incorrect as I am on a number of Wikipedia email lists. They describe it as a Yahoo! problem but I would think Wikimedia could figure out a way not to trigger this result. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the bug report. It seems like a general outgoing email problem sending from Wikipedia through Yahoo. There was some mention of Google event before that flagging those Yahoo emails originated from WP as suspicious.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
And you are set to go
See you on the far side. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Blade. It's much appreciated. I'm a little tired right now, maybe I'll launch it first thing in the morning when I have my wits together. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, whenever you're ready. I'd have gotten it posted earlier, but one of my clients at work decided to assault me (interesting story...) and I had to deal with the associated mountain of paperwork the state forces on us. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope you don't have to face that on a regular basis. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Usually only once or twice a month, and I have about an 8 inch and 70 pound advantage; nevertheless, I'm definitely going to feel it in my shoulders tomorrow. At least it gives me some stories to tell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope you don't have to face that on a regular basis. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, whenever you're ready. I'd have gotten it posted earlier, but one of my clients at work decided to assault me (interesting story...) and I had to deal with the associated mountain of paperwork the state forces on us. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
RfA
About time. Just wanted to let you know that I will indeed vote for you, but I don't want to be first, as there are editors here who would come out in favor of Hitler if I said I opposed him. BMK (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- We didn't start off on the right foot when we crossed paths on ANI one day in the fall of 2013. I think you called me a busy-body as I was full of opinions. But I took a Wikibreak, I visit ANI less often now and it means a lot to have your endorsement, BMK. It should go live tomorrow morning. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I do indeed recall the incident, and my estimation of you is not at all what it was at that time. A number of current admins have recognized your potential worth as an admin, and I have come to agree with them. BMK (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!!!!
You are one of the nicest Wikipedia editors I've met! You keep your cool and treat me like a real person! Thank you, thank you, thank you! I hope you will continue to stand up for me and support me in the future! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think my best advice you, YoSoyUnHamster, is to take things slow, read over policies and guidelines and see how editing is done on Wikipedia. It's not like other writing on the internet and it takes some time to learn the ropes. Also, try not to take reverts personally as this happens to everyone. I hope you find an area of Wikipedia to work in where you can make a contribution. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, yes! Thanks again! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Removing my question
Hi, I'm ready to remove my question and vote. However I would request a voluntary interaction ban between you and me, though that's not a precondition or anything. (I also think I deserve an apology, but I can live without one.) Best, Manul ~ talk 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Liz, I would not give this any consideration. The question reflects badly on its poser and not on you. --NeilN talk to me 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN, like I said I am ready to remove it, but not because it reflects badly on me, which is a puzzling aspersion. I'm just ready to leave it behind. Manul ~ talk 03:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN was suggesting that Liz ignore the voluntary interaction ban request. I don't know what this is all about (though I did see your exchange on Blade's page) but asking someone who may be an admin in a few days to essentially recuse themselves from discussions involving you is not exactly designed to reflect well on you. You may be making the suggestion in good faith but it is up there near the top of the lousy ideas list. Just saying! --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Manul, this is confusing to me because I have had no contact with you since you were known as Vzaak, a rename which seems to have happened during my wikibreak. And while we had different points of view, this is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Then, out of the blue, you post on my RfA and send me a long email message detailing all of my faults and how unworthy I am to be an admin. I didn't respond to that email and I didn't respond to you on my RfA so I'm not sure what interaction you want to ban. I've looked through my contributions to user talk pages and found that I posted once to your talk page on November 28, 2013 which anyone can check out.
- If you want a voluntary interaction ban, I think that would be helped if you stop talking about me and about disputes that occurred two years ago and I promise not to mention you either. I'm just sorry you can't get past an old talk page argument. I'm sure that we have both moved on since 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN was suggesting that Liz ignore the voluntary interaction ban request. I don't know what this is all about (though I did see your exchange on Blade's page) but asking someone who may be an admin in a few days to essentially recuse themselves from discussions involving you is not exactly designed to reflect well on you. You may be making the suggestion in good faith but it is up there near the top of the lousy ideas list. Just saying! --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN, like I said I am ready to remove it, but not because it reflects badly on me, which is a puzzling aspersion. I'm just ready to leave it behind. Manul ~ talk 03:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Liz, you were one of my on-wiki harassers, applauding the polemics that were falsely attacking me and other Wikipedia editors.[1] The polemics were based on the (provably false) notion that this person had been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, a notion you helped promote.
- Do you still believe that this person was not sockpuppeting? Your past statements on the matter continue to be cited in an harassment campaign targeting Wikipedia editors that remains active and extends to the present day. Your upcoming status as an admin is likely to further legitimize this harassment. Manul ~ talk 02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't recall any harassment I committed and I don't see that a dispute in October 2013 contributes to an ongoing harassment campaign against you. I did question the SPI investigation into Tumbleman's account back then but I don't recall continuing to claim his innocence after this investigation was closed.
- I disagreed with you and your approach to other editors which I thought demonstrated a lack of good faith. But disagreement is not harassment and I think all parties in that Sheldrake dispute were guilty of dishing out inappropriate amounts of sarcasm. I know Barney posted a lot on my talk page pointedly ridiculing me. I have not edited in the pseudoscience area since then and I chalk up this Tumbleman incident to my naivete as a newly active editor who thought a fellow editor was being bullied. That was my perception 21 months ago and my opinion would be different if it occurred today.
- I also disagree that the misguided defense I made for another editor almost two years ago would legitimize any current harassment against you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you still believe that this person was not sockpuppeting? Your past statements on the matter continue to be cited in an harassment campaign targeting Wikipedia editors that remains active and extends to the present day. Your upcoming status as an admin is likely to further legitimize this harassment. Manul ~ talk 02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, thank you for acknowledging that your defense of Tumbleman at the SPI was misguided. That means a lot, and it eases my mind a bit. Until at least March of last year, you had applauded the defamation campaign against me which posited that Tumbleman was innocent and that I had been falsely accusing editors of being Tumbleman sockpuppets in order to get them banned because of their point of view.[2] It was wrong of you to do so -- regardless of how you felt about the SPI -- and I considered your behavior to be harassment. Manul ~ talk 19:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for putting yourself on the firing line, and for your willingness to serve this wonderful project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Cullen328:, thank you, Jim. It took strong prodding for me to actually schedule an RfA.
- Maybe you should consider throwing your hat in the ring, eh? There is always room for compassionate, level-headed administrators. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for stepping up. Simple question, not for the RfA (which I supported, Precious and a woman!): why don't you just start an article and promise to expand it to GA, or even do that, now? Pick a nice limited topic. BWV 46 isn't GA quality yet but will be expanded and nominated today (promise to self). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought about doing that, Gerda. But I didn't want it to look like I was doing so just because of the RfA. But there is an article I have wanted to start for a while and maybe this is as good a time as any to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Great! Looks don't matter if your heart tells you to do it ;) - When the RfA is over I will get back to my other question: where you would find spirit in one of Wikipedia's restrictions, as the saying "the spirit of the restriction" implies. You can look at mine, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Gerda, you are really an expert on writing articles.
- I'll admit, at this point, I'm pretty disheartened. I've had messy romantic break-ups that were less painful than this RfA. I can't say I'd recommend the experience to anyone else. Have a good weekend, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear "disheartened". Fit's the title of the cantata, sadly, - did you notice that irony? - I have seen a disheartening RfA but that was not yours (100+ supports! and your integrity was not questioned). - I once made a DYK about encouragement, DYK? (not my article) - Wish you all the best, and will be ready to assist with article work, I love collaboration! First I need to finish one more of mine, because it's for this Sunday ;)
- You're right, Gerda. I should be focusing on the support I've received. And with that, I will take a very much needed break from the Wikipedia world. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear "disheartened". Fit's the title of the cantata, sadly, - did you notice that irony? - I have seen a disheartening RfA but that was not yours (100+ supports! and your integrity was not questioned). - I once made a DYK about encouragement, DYK? (not my article) - Wish you all the best, and will be ready to assist with article work, I love collaboration! First I need to finish one more of mine, because it's for this Sunday ;)
- I thought about doing that, Gerda. But I didn't want it to look like I was doing so just because of the RfA. But there is an article I have wanted to start for a while and maybe this is as good a time as any to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I just wanted to apologise for my pre-RfA comments where I stated that content creation shouldn't matter, evidently I underestimated how much some in the community value it for an admin candidate. I absolutely did not expect, however, that some users might go as far as to insinuate that you're somehow NOTHERE because you don't primarily edit articles; that honestly baffles me. Anyway I hope the RfA hasn't been too stressful, this has definitely been one of the least civil this year. Sam Walton (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Content creation shouldn't matter and it's not a traditional prerequisite that most people care about. I passed an RfA with literally nothing but one start-class article creation to my name that had been entirely rewritten by someone else and no one even mentioned any concern about it. Vocal content fiends always come and go, and usually their behavior is panned by the larger community and they go away once they've received enough criticism. A group of people have chosen to pile onto this one issue but I suspect it's more of a reactionary backlash to your massive initial show of support they felt was perhaps undeserved or needing to be counteracted. Regardless, hang in there. Swarm ♠ 10:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- That has been my initial impression, too, Swarm...the early support was strong which I think surprised some editors who didn't think this RfA would pass. But it's always dangerous to speculate about why people do what they do so I'll stop here. I'll just end with saying that this has been the longest 7 days of my life. Pass or not, Tuesday can't come soon enough for me! Liz Read! Talk! 15:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Content creation shouldn't matter and it's not a traditional prerequisite that most people care about. I passed an RfA with literally nothing but one start-class article creation to my name that had been entirely rewritten by someone else and no one even mentioned any concern about it. Vocal content fiends always come and go, and usually their behavior is panned by the larger community and they go away once they've received enough criticism. A group of people have chosen to pile onto this one issue but I suspect it's more of a reactionary backlash to your massive initial show of support they felt was perhaps undeserved or needing to be counteracted. Regardless, hang in there. Swarm ♠ 10:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 July 2015
- News and notes: BARC de-adminship proposal; Wikimania recordings debate
- Recent research: Wikipedia and collective intelligence; how Wikipedia is tweeted
- In the media: Is Wikipedia a battleground in the culture wars?
- Featured content: Even mammoths get the Blues
- Traffic report: Namaste again, Reddit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Re
- 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)
This Month in Education: July 2015
- 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)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
— 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)
Nokuse Plantation has been nominated for Did You Know
![]() | Hello, Liz. Nokuse Plantation, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know![]() |
Wikidata weekly summary #169
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Wikidata-logo-en.svg/150px-Wikidata-logo-en.svg.png)
- 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?
- 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.
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. WormTT(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)
- 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)
- I hope for the best here =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 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)
- 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)
- 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
![]() | On 5 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nokuse Plantation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nokuse Plantation is the largest privately owned nature preserve in the Southeastern United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nokuse Plantation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— 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)
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.—cyberpowerChat: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.—cyberpowerChat: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)
- 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.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:17, 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)
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)
- +1. Congratulations! — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 6 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)
All right!!!!
It has become apparent that you
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)
- 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 Ran 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)
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)
Congratulations
May you use your powers for good! :) Glad to have voted for you! Thereandnot (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)