User talk:Liz

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liz (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 8 July 2015 (→‎Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases CSD nomination: Amending comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'tis the summer season!

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


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



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

Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel

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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

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

Don't call names, you frothy hasty-witted gudgeon!

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 unmuzzled doghearted strumpet.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message??

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

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

Duplicate posts at

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

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

This Month in Education: May 2015

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

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

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

Caitlin Jenner

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

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

Mail call

Dropped you a line. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, WTT! Liz Read! Talk! 11:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed and I've replied again! WormTT(talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar threads in ANI which you closed

Hi Liz - I thought I would briefly explain why there were two very similar threads posted by me on ANI. The first thread was closed prematurely in my opinion. The second part of my question asking for directions to policy was not answered. I tried to get the closing editor to re-open the thread by talking to them on their Talk page. They declined. I thought about getting another admin to reopen, but I felt this would attract too much drama for a relatively simple question. So, I posted a second thread but restricted the question to the second part of the original question, i.e. direction to policy. I felt this was the most efficient and dramaless way of dealing with what was still an unanswered question. The matter is settled now and thanks for your attention to this. By the way, I love Kittehmaster! ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation, DrChrissy. I'm sorry if I came across as snarky. And, while adorable, the Kittehmaster hasn't been doing his job well as my talk page has been vandalized a few times over the past week. I don't think he is intimidating enough. ;-)
Have a good weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You too!DrChrissy (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awardagement

The coveted dingus.

For this edit you are awarded the Wikipedia Beaux-Eaux Cup with Imaginary Peruvian Oak Leaves. Display it with pride and/or confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so surprised, I wasn't expecting this, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I will cherish it. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 11:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Synagogue

Appreciate your calm, reasoned input on the topic of my posts on United Synagogue. I would appreciate your guidance further in adding content to this page which needs additional information but which repeat offender continually remove for no valid reason, that I can see. Internetwikier (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Internetwikier, unless you work in some small niche area of Wikipedia that gets few readers and even fewer editors, you will have to adapt to working with others. Collaborative editing is how Wikipedia operates and you can write a stunning article, polish it up and then future editors can remove some of its amazing content or, conversely, work to improve it!
This doesn't mean that you abandon the content you want to add, just realize that a) you have to treat other editors with respect instead of dismissing their objections, b) you need to have solid reliable sources to back up your statements (and many ones if the information is controversial) and c) if an editor reverts your addition of content, you need to go to the article talk page and make your case for its inclusion. You are seeking to persuade other editors of the value of your addition or edit change and you shouldn't demand that others do what you want or get out of your way. Your argument begins with assuming good faith, that is, while other editors might disagree with you, they also are trying to do what they think is best and they are not part of some cabal. Also, realize that even if you are adding controversial material, it can be written from a neutral point of view and to achieve this neutrality, it might benefit from other editors' input or having them copy edit the section to remove any bias (and we all have our biases!).
Finally, if the dispute still isn't resolved, go to dispute resolution or WP:3O and get a third party to mediate the dispute. Do not edit war or try to get an editor you find obstinate blocked. Realize that on Wikipedia, there is no deadline and we take the long view that, over time, articles will improve. Your edit might not win support today but come back another day with better sources and you might find other editors agreeing with you.
This isn't the fast and easy where you always get your way but it's how Wikipedia operates. It requires that you collaborate, not battle, other editors. Also realize that there probably isn't a single editor here, even the most experienced and productive, who haven't had their edits reverted, had their content rewritten and gotten warning messages placed on their talk page. No one is immune.
And if you find yourself getting angry, check out Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and see wide variety of lame disputes on Wikipedia, where battles have raged over a single comma. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You - Columbia University Sex Assault - Mattress Performance (Carry The Weight)

Hi Liz, Thank you very much for letting me know status of my input onto that page, and what I need to do to get it back on the page. I will provide the full citation within the next few days so that hopefully that information can be restored. Have a great weekend (and stay as helpful and enjoyable to work with on these edits as you have been, it makes getting it done or understanding why it won't be so much more pleasant an experience; and none of us needs anything but that ;-) 4.35.92.19 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Cosmic  Emperor  13:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For coining Liz's Law of Longevity

The Barnstar of Good Humor
To wit: "Longevity on Wikipedia is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck." At AN/I, 6/6/15. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #161

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

FYI

Hello Liz. I wanted to let you know that the ping system does not work for IPs. I had noticed you using it on ANI today so, if you have been using it in the past, this might be a reason that you haven't gotten a reply. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, MarnetteD, I realize it doesn't work, I just like to use people's names when I respond to them and I guess I'm so used to linking them via [[User: ]] format that I instinctively put a username or IP number in the brackets. But thanks for the word, and I hope you are well this fine summer weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that makes sense. Of course there is nothing wrong with using that link, especially if you are used to doing so. BTW Kittehmaster may be the cutest "watcher of vandals" that I have ever seen :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it makes sense, it's just a reflexive habit. I'm so old-school, I haven't even gotten used to {{ping| }} or {{user| }} ! I used to copy people's entire signature until I was told that some editors don't like that one little bit.
Regarding Kittehmaster, my talk page recently received protection because of vandalism so I think he is just too cute to scare away vandals. But I wish I could remember whose edit notice I borrowed that from so I could give them an acknowledgment. But I created it in April 2014 and I can't remember! I look forward to the day I'm editing some editor's talk page and I see that kitten and I can thank them for creating that edit notice! Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That image is currently used on several hundred pages, but the only other identifying itself as an edit notice—which indeed looks the same in all other respects, and has been there for four years—is User talk:La Pianista/Editnotice. So I figure it was very likely to have been the immediate source.—Odysseus1479 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ask and you shall receive! Thanks for figuring this out, Odysseus! The strange thing is that I went to User talk:La Pianista and searched the edit history and I have never made an edit to that page so I don't know how I would have ever have seen the edit notice. The only other explanation I can come up with is that I did a Wikipedia search of pages in the form of "User talk:Username/Editnotice" and it popped up in the search results. But now I know who I can give credit to and I appreciate your legwork! Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There remains the possibility that it was another page that has since been deleted or had the image replaced. It may have been based on an earlier template belonging to an admin (the last edit being removal of the mention of deleting articles), but none of my searches for text snippets turned up anything.—Odysseus1479 21:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Article

Hi Liz. Thanks for being welcoming! I do not know if you saw, but I answered your question on the Proposed Decision page re Contribsx . Apologies if I did it wrong - I am by no means a prolific wiki editor! Yes I am writing an article and multiple UK national publications have expressed interest. I thought that DGG's comment was potentially at risk of being misinterpreted. Risker has now also suggested an alternative wording. Vordrak (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Vordrak, yes when I saw you had 12 edits, I knew you were a new editor. I'll check out your answer on the talk page. FYI, the clerks, me included, don't take to off-tangent conversations on arbitration talk pages so you might find it easier to ask questions via email to get your details straight. Wikipedia arbitration is its own little world and you'll probably have a number of questions on procedures. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLPTALK on Irom Sharmila talk page

Hi Liz! I'm just wondering why you re-added the BLP violations on the Sharmila talk page? There are some fairly serious allegations there. I wasn't sure if I should have removed the comments completely or just the sentences with the violations, but as the comments had very little to do with the article I thought it was okay to remove them completely. Also I was hoping someone reading the ANI thread would help out. -- haminoon (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Haminoon, I didn't see your explanation I just saw the wholesale removal of talk page comments on an article that is part of a dispute on WP:ANI.
The talk page conversation was from 2013 to September 2014, not about the recent dispute, so I archived the content. If you think there are BLP violations that are worth removing, please go to Talk:Irom Chanu Sharmila/Archive 1 and remove the content. I apologize for not recognizing you as the editor who posted the complaint at ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Do you think just the offending sentences should be removed or the entire comment(s)? -- haminoon (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just remove the portion of the comments you judge to be BLP violations and note that the comments have been redacted. I'm disappointed that you haven't had a better response to your complaint on ANI, hopefully, in the next day or two, you'll get some feedback from some admins. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 04:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ME

Re this, I notice that you use ME a lot in editsums. What does that MEan? I know you're not the type to think everything is about you! :) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ha. I've been wondering what it means, and thought I'd eventually figure it out, but perhaps being direct is the answer. ;) ? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it means minor edit. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations. In my preferences, I have it checked that I have to put in some text in the edit summary with each edit so I'm repeating the little checkbox for minor edits. So, no, it's not all about me. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 11:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could have looked up abbreviations, but I conclude that this way is much nicer. Thx. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, it is nicer. I hope you have a great day! Liz Read! Talk! 11:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity...

you said in one of your earlier post that you had become dependent on [WP:TOP25]] and WP:5000. Why have you become dependent on them? What are you using them for? Just wondered. Serendipodous 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that was overstating the situation, Serendipodous. I just meant that I read your lists every week and I look forward to seeing what articles made the charts, primarily the Top 10 and Top 25 lists but I check out the WP:5000 occasionally, too. I always seem to find something I didn't expect or some article I hadn't heard of before. Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration Request

@Liz: Hi. I saw your edit on Chase Me's talk page. I have not responded there, but if you look you will see a long standing user has replied (albeit neglecting to ping you) saying they thought my comments quite reasonable. I do understand that you want to protect a long standing editor from poor treatment at a difficult time and that despite criticisms he is a long serving volunteer for this project. I note your comments about the frequency with which Chase Me edits his page.

Having said that, my comment was not "grave-dancing". Whilst Chase Me has inevitably had a difficult time, his actions as found by the Arbitration Committee have caused real suffering to others - including some real life acquaintances of mine. The fact that his talk page does not reflect his current status is a source of distress.

I am sure you did not mean it but your comment about "grave-dancing" appears to unfairly ascribe bad faith and as there is by no means a community consensus I would ask you to please reconsider. Vordrak (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to protect anyone, Vordrak. I have never interacted with Chase me in any capacity, never even said hello to the guy. I would have said the exact same thing if I saw similar activity on your talk page.
It is called grave-dancing when an editor goes to another editor's talk page who is blocked or has received some disciplinary action and, basically, taunts them. That looks like what you were doing because a) you made demands upon him, b) you set a ridiculous cutoff time of 24 hours when action you demanded had to be taken and c) you can easily see by looking at his contributions that he is not an active editor and so, would never see your message in the time you demanded.
So, your comments looked pointy which means that they were a matter of displaying your displeasure at Chase me's actions than actual concern that he delete some userboxes. If you think that means I'm assuming bad faith, that's your call, I've just seen these kind of postings occur after an editor is sanctioned on ANI or ArbCom. Again, I'd post the same statement to anyone who came to your talk page and acted likewise.
Besides, GZWDer, deleted those userboxes yesterday so the point is moot. I should have checked the user page before commenting in the first place and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: My comment about your protecting Chase Me is not a criticism - it is a good thing to want to do, for any user. With regard to the boxes I noticed they are gone but there is still comment in prose above about his being an administrator, functionary etcetera. In any event I take your point about short notice and will give it a reasonable space of time before progressing. Vordrak (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning

You repeatedly accuse me of untrue things that directly conflict things that I have said. I don't mean something like accusing me of being non-neutral, that's your opinion and it's understandable. I'm talking about mundane details. Like you saying I don't edit other articles when i've explained to you and shown you that that it isn't true. Then when I correct you, no response or apology. It is very clear given the number of times you have done that and that you continue doing it, that you are most likely acting in bad faith. If you continue to do that, I will report you and we can let an administrator decide whether you are being disruptive. As I believe you are. Likely to divert attention from the issue or merely to troll me. So I ask you to voluntarily stop doing this. Handpolk (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz! Our very neutral friend above likes to start sections labelled "Warning". I've even had a Final Warning! This is doubtless a very great asset to the project, and I'm sure it will work wonders. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A final warning which you violated. I am working on the AE now. Came across this going through your edit history. Thanks for teaching me how to make diff's Liz! Handpolk (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A final piece of advice, Handpolk, which I predict you will ignore. Experienced editors, like admins, do not look with favor on editors who, within a week, will have filed three cases at AE and ANI. This is not how problems get resolved here. I advise you against being so litigious and find other ways to either a) work with editors you have disagreements with (which is something all editors have to do here) or b) find articles to edit where you don't find yourself in constant conflict with others. It's a big encyclopedia, over 4 million articles, and there is room here enough for all of us to contribute. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handpolk please try to refrain from harassing other editors as you are doing here. This is not a collegial approach to collaborative editing and if you continue with comments like these you risk being the one whose conduct will be reported. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liz, I'm sorry that Handpolk put you through the kinf of on- and off-Wiki abuse he did - no one should have to go through that kind of personal abuse simply because of disagreements on an Internet website whose purpose is to help provide information to the people. It's really quite amazing what some people will do, forgetting completely what our basic purpose is and descending to levels of behavior more befitting Cro-Magnons than Homo sapiens sapiens. Life in the past may have been "nasty [and] brutish", but there's no reason that it should still be now -- but I guess we're still in the beginning stages of the evolution of online behavior. That's kinda sad, 46 years after Arpanet, 35 years after Usenet, and 25 years after the World Wide Web. You'd think we would have come a little farther by now.
    I hope you've noted that Handpolk has been indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate, so perhaps you can derive some small amount of satisfaction from that. Best, BMK (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, BMK. My satisfaction comes from seeing that the disruptive behavior by Handpolk was solidly rejected by most of the editors who chose to comment on the situation. In the face of so many disagreements (which occur naturally here), it's nice to see a consensus said that, no, this kind of behavior is not acceptable here.
I hope that Handpolk can not only find other articles he is interested in helping improve but also that he learns that compromise is part of the collaborative editing process (that is, unless it involves violations in copyright or BLP policy). I hope he can find a mentor who can help him learn more about working with others. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 12:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Talkback

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

Thought you'd want to know, she was trying to ping you. I've worked with her before and have some knowledge of the thorny mess that is Iranian history of the last 100 years, I'm happy to do what I can as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #162

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

ANI close

It is probably moot in this case, but closing a case where an editor has been indef blocked for a different reason can be problematic, particularly if they come back talking and get unblocked for lack of communication. This wouldn't change the current problem of WP:CIR. My opinion is that these are best left to run their course, as the two issues may or may not be related. Others may disagree. I'm not suggesting a change, but I did want to make a note. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Dennis, are you telling me this so I know to not close cases like this in the future? Or should I undo the closure? Either one (or both) are fine with me, it's always good to learn how things are usually done. For what it's worth, I always use the reason provided by the admin who blocked which is seen on the editor's contribution page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this case is probably moot, so it more of a future thing. Just as if someone was at ANI for personal attacks, then independently was blocked for edit warring, you wouldn't normally close the discussion because the two problems are independent of each other. It essentially gives them a free pass on the first problem if they are unblocked. Sometimes, it makes sense to, such as they are blocked after a CU links them as a sockpuppet...they obviously aren't coming back. Sometimes, asking in the thread is best. Other times, just letting it ride out or let an admin do a definitive close that addresses the merits of the actual discussion. That was the big concern, that the close didn't address the CIR issue at all, which was mid-discussion. I'm not saying it was "wrong" (if there is such a thing in a fuzzy place like ANI) but I think it was less than optimal because there was still the competency issue, which is actually a bigger deal than failure to communicate (the block). But again, not a scolding or correction and in this case, I don't see reverting as necessary, I'm just providing you information, a perspective from an old ANI warhorse. If they can get unblocked, it is better to finish what you started with the first issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I usually only close a case when I believe an ANI discussion is resolved which often happens when an editor is blocked or a page protected. While the cause of the block (not communicating with editors) in this instance was mentioned in the noticeboard discussion, there was a conversation about competency going on which I thought going to be curtailed because of the block of the editor. But in the future, if I see this occur, I'll not take action and let an admin do the closure. Thanks again for the advice, Dennis. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I have an idea what direction you are headed, and just want to help you see the nuances, which is what adminship is about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Residential Schools Truth & Reconciliation Commission

Hi Liz, Regarding my edits on 'Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada, Residential Schools Truth & Reconciliation Commission', you are looking for 'citation', you asked if I had seen this information that I provided in a newspaper or magazine? I have seen this information in a documentary on Aboriginal People Television Network - Canada (APTN), a documentary style television channel run by academics who specialize in aboriginal and indian affairs; I have provided that citation here already and then it was - if you go back far enough you will see - removed by another Wikipedia administrator/editor. So newspaper and magazine mentions are sufficient but documentary news television, that include in depth academic analysis and evidence to support statements is not or should I resubmit that Aboriginal People Television Network citation along with actual TRC-Canada papers? I also provided citation for documentation in National Archives of Canada but the Wikipedia Administrator removed it and said it was 'false', said that actual TRC-Canada documents are false. WV NYC (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Stalker

Best edit you've done for Aaaaaaaaaages. ;) -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a change was overdue, Roxy. I guess I was hoping for a year-long springtime. Liz Read! Talk! 11:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for stepping on your feet

I kind jumped the gun a bit on the T13 case, I just wanted to get the e-mail out as quickly as possible and forget about the rest. Sorry if I made your job harder by editing the case pages before you got to. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was an edit conflict but I was able to go back and copy the text I was adding. It was a little confusing because it is the first Arbcom case I've opened. I'm sure there are adjustments that are coming so this was just the first one! Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Casenav/data

Hey, quick tip, for all of the entries at Template:Casenav/data, you need an equal sign after- you don't need to fill it in, but you do need an equal sign, such as |Technical 13-recused=, so could add those? Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, L. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casenav template

Hi Liz, I went ahead and fixed your syntax on the casenav template. You simply need to have equal signs after every entry (so it doesn't think the next line is the value), and need to set rescued to 0 so it can calculate the vote tallies correctly. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just getting to it. I guess I should have each page in a different tab and save them all at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) To editor Liz: Yeah, that's usually the way I do it, and it ends up saving so much time- for example, closing Sockpuppet investigations block took me only 30 minutes, while I remember my first ARCA taking longer than that. Cheers! To editor Kharkiv07: Thank you very much! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening cases, edit summary

Hey Liz, when you open a case from the RFAR page could you put a link into the edit summary to the destination page for the case please? Akin to [2][3][4]. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hammersoft, I will. This is the first case I've opened from scratch and I'm already getting good feedback on how I can do it better next time. I appreciate it. Liz Read! Talk! 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries :) Everybody does something for the first time. Also, could you please inform the parties to the case, like [5][6][7]? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hammersoft, I was asked not to take further action until I heard back from the arbitrators. As soon as I get the go ahead, the first thing I'll do is post notices. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. I understand there's been some off-wiki discussion of some kind about the case. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is off-wiki discussion of every case, primarily about setting or changing deadlines, who the clerks are that are working on a case and other stimulating organizational details. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nod?

Do you mind if I nominate you for adminship, I've noticed you've done great work I am confident that if nominated you should pass :). Valoem talk contrib 22:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you to say, Valoem. I might have an RfA in the future but not right now. I still have some work ahead of me. I appreciate your support and your comment made my day, thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just wondering what the reasoning is? You are very level headed and have some strong supporters based on my research. I think you would be an editor who would benefit from having the mop as soon as possible. Valoem talk contrib 22:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there are areas of editing that I am less familiar with and I would like to get a little more experience first because I imagine the subjects will come up. I'm not talking about months of experience, just a little more than I have now. But I hope to tend to this this summer. As for your research on me? I'm curious but fine not knowing what that's about! Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came across you when I noticed this edit. I agree that version as the most neutral due to the fact there is no evidence against the accused. I went ahead and looked at some other edits all of which shows excellent discretion particularly when dealing with disputes. I feel that nominating you now is the best choice. If there are other areas you are looking to improve perhaps it would be best to practice with administrative tools as I feel you are more than ready. Also I've notice many editors come to you for guidance and advice, all signs of a good administrator. The sooner you have the mop the better for the encyclopedia, so I feel. I hope you could allow me to make the nomination, it would be beneficial for many editors. :) Valoem talk contrib 04:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Brigading" - per question at WP:AE

Hi Liz, Apologies for the interruption here, but I wanted to provide an answer to the question that you asked at WP:AE on the meaning of "brigading". Looking at either wiktionary or reference.com gives brigade as "a group of people/individuals organised for a common purpose", and brigading as part of the verb for forming or acting as such a group. Here on Wikipedia, we would probably use WP:TAGTEAM to mean roughly the same thing. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryk72, I appreciate the definition. I know of brigade but I didn't think brigading was a commonly used word and thought it might have a message board-specific meaning. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, Thinking about this particular use (as a verb), I'm wondering if it's more common on one side of the Atlantic (UK) than the other (US); or potentially more common in the wider British Commonwealth. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the Urban Dictionary (definitely not a reliable source), it is specifically a term used on Reddit where it is likened to vote manipulation (Rule #2). I'm not sure about whether its use is different from one country to another. Liz Read! Talk! 13:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the GamerGate controversey article

You undid an edit I did without reason. Can you specify the reason that you undid the revision on that article by me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumMass (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, QuantumMass, I posted an explanation on your user talk page, User talk:QuantumMass. I hope this helps you understand the current policy governing editing this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I did have 500 edits, would the addition be allowed? Or are there any further details I am missing on the issue? - QuantumMass — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumMass (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say, QuantumMass, in ten months, there are 38 archived talk pages which is more than most articles have that have been around 10+ years. This article has been the subject of consistent dispute since its creation.
One reason that there is this editing restriction is because new editors were coming into edit this article and its talk page, their edits were heavily scrutinized and if they ignored the comments made by other editors who have been working on this article for months, and persisted in pushing their edits, they often found themselves topic banned, or even indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia website. Even editors with lots of experience can get in trouble editing this article! So, the hope is that you will learn about collaboration by working on less divisive articles and in a month or two, when you meet the editing restrictions, please come back and participate on the article talk page and present your ideas along with any reliable sources you would like the article to utilize.
I hope you will find other articles that you will enjoy working on until that time comes. We have 4+ million other articles that could use your help! Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is "no, it would not be allowed," because your edit flies in the face of what the reliable sources say.--Jorm (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask, but what are these reliable sources? It seems the gamergate official site is a primary source for what the movement's intentions areQuantumMass (talk)QuantumMass — Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, QuantumMass. It's very brief but it gets across the main points. There are links on this page so you can follow up and see the specific policies it refers to: basically, reliable, independent, verifiable secondary sources (books, newspapers, magazines, mainstream news websites). Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an "official" gamergate site. There can't be: its an amorphous "movement" with no leaders, platform, or membership. --Jorm (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue that with any movement that exists. It is a site clearly accepted by many who support the movement. Also, I think there needs to be rewording in the article if sources are a necessity. At least provide evidence from an article that gamergate is a movement "concerning sexism" and then make the article unbiased by saying "claimed by news sources such as..." Clearly giving a intention for the movement without the evidence is clearly biased and invokes an agenda.QuantumMass (talk)QuantumMass — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Re your post to an editor about a file listed for deletion

Just saw[8] - I don't know if you read their talk page, but LouisAragon has taken them to ANI where I've commented. The guy is keen but I don't know how to stop the copyvio, the OR, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug. Actually, it was the ANI report that caused me to look at their contributions. I think the files will all need to be reviewed. It's difficult regarding OR because there are a lot of user created maps (made in conjunction with Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop) that are used in articles but, in this instance, the map was just totally inadequate. Liz Read! Talk! 10:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he changed the size of the Timurid empire from 4.4 million sq km to 6 million, leaving the source in for 4.4 - 6 million seems to be a figure he made up. Then there are the symbols and flags, clear OR. These OR maps are a pain, but we do expect them to be sourced. Are you going to comment at ANI? Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment at WP:ANI. Although it might seem like I'm a regular contributor at ANI, I try to only post if I believe I have something to offer to a discussion. Sometimes it can be further evidence of lapses in editing behavior while other times it might be a word of support or closing a case. I'm not adept at map creation but there are clearly some problems here with his map creations regarding original research and sourcing. Liz Read! Talk! 13:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest post there. Doug Weller (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliches

I suppose that you are right that the banned editor meant "cliques" when he referred to "cliches". That didn't occur to me. I thought that he meant that the other editors were using trite or worn-out arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Robert!
Well, the way he was using the word implied a group of people (like "you and your cliches will go after me") so cliques was my first guess. And, if you sound it out, you might think the qu- sound was like a c-. But I guess it doesn't matter now that he is banned.
Any way, I hope you are well and enjoying your weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right that he did mean cliques. It wasn't a clique that banned him. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #163

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • German language Wikipedia closed its RfC on usage of Wikidata data. As a result Wikidata data can be used on the project as long as it happens through a template and it has a non-Wikimedia reference.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • Past: Office hour on IRC. We talked about cool things that happened around Wikidata over the past 3 months got an update on upcoming developments and Freebase and more. You can read the log.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Made a small API breaking change to wbeditentity and wbgetclaims modules. Details can be seen in the commit message of https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/217885/
    • Worked more on unit support
    • Fixed an issue where you'd sometimes select the wrong value when entering a statement unintentionally (phabricator:T98471)
    • Switched the whole code base to make use of DataModel 3.0
    • The concept of “claims” no longer exists in Wikibase, as all places in the software work with statements. We are making this more and more explicit in the code.
    • The autoloading mechanism of the extension changed, see phabricator:T100813
    • More work on getting the Wikibase Quality extensions ready for deployment. They'll improve constraint checking and provide checks against 3rd party databases.
    • Special:UnconnectedPages had to be reworked (thanks Amir!) because of huge performance issues. Because of this it loses some functionality (being able to specify where the list starts and limiting the list to pages that have local interwiki links). We're working on bringing functionality back without the performance penalty.
    • Bene* created a SPARQL abstraction layer for PHP called Asparagus: https://github.com/Benestar/asparagus
    • Enabled arbitrary access on arwiki, cawiki, eswiki, huwiki, kowiki, rowiki, ukwiki, viwiki, and usage tracking on dewiki, ruwiki, cswiki and all s3 wikis. (ruwiki and cswiki get arbitrary access on June 23)
    • Finishing work on improved handling “invalid” values and statements with deleted properties.
    • Small breaking DOM change: Wikibase no longer adds its own h1 tag but uses MediaWiki's default .firstHeading element. (phabricator:T93534)
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
    • 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, for the new properties listed above.

Hi Liz!

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

PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I've responded! Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Cleanup

I was a little disappointed by your comment earlier suggesting I made a typo on purpose. As I said on my own talk page, I was editing via an iPhone 4.

However, your suggestion that I do some cleanup work is good and I am currently working on the Mckenzie friend article. You are welcome to comment and offer suggestions. Vordrak (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vordrak, I don't see how you could accidentally type in such a different name than your own but I don't own an iPhone so maybe it is possible. I'll strike my statement as once it has been responded to, an editor can not delete a talk page comment.
It's great to hear you are working on an article! I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to it. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to ping JHochman, I just accidentally omitted the tilda's to sign my name, so it looked like I was signing as him rather than pinging. I just added a section for Scotland to the McKenzie Friend Article. Vordrak (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now. I have forgotten to sign posts. Thank you for the explanation and I'm sorry to have misunderstood. Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Antifeminism (responding to the accusation of edit warring)

Dear Liz,

It's a bit frustrating to be making good faith edits, never reverting without addressing other editors concerns, yet repeatedly finding my own changes reverted with no comment but the accusation of edit warring. As I said to Rhododendrites, who was the first to do that, each time I'd re-added something, I had modified it in an attempt to address the concerns that other editors raised on the talk page, and I continued to engage with them on the talk page. This is not edit warring, it's an attempt to reach a consensus. Rhododendrites agreed that he'd been too hasty in reverting and undid his reversion himself—and then you come and do it again. :-(

The change that you reverted was a relatively innocuous addition that was sourced and no one had objected to that particular change. If you have a reason for opposing it, by all means state it on the Talk page, but please don't just revert it on the basis that I've been trying to force changes against consensus, because if you'll take a closer look at the talk page and edit history, you'll see that I haven't.

Have a good day! JudahH (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JudahH, looking at the page history of Antifeminism, it clearly looks like an edit war has been going on here for some time, there is revert after revert after revert. I was trying to return the page to the state before the recent tit-for-tat reverts but, yes, it involved me reverting to an earlier version of the article.
I will look in at the talk page and see your argument for the edit you wish to make which didn't seem like NPOV when I read it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an example of one of many ways people can be considered antifeminist. I originally added it as a less negative example of "antifeminism" to counterbalance the clearly negative one (from a modern perspective) given in the lead of antisuffrage, but as a simple example of a way people can be antifeminist, it seemed straightforward to me and was backed by sources.
I can see people possibly disliking the example because it implicitly characterizes "feminism" as pushing a particular agenda that not all feminists support, but that just points up the fact that the "antifeminism" is an essentially oppositional term whose interpretation depends largely on your interpretation of "feminism", which is a point that the article should really make. Anyhow, I'll wait a while longer to see if anyone else comments on the talk page before making another change there. JudahH (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Articles Improved Today

@Liz: I meant to do this yesterday, but I found ten articles at random from the category Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2015. None of them related to GamerGate.

Of these, 6 I was able to find sufficient sources - 10,000 Maniacs, A Flash of Green, Aimlessness (album), Air data computer, Adventures of Pip.

I improved Bidet, Big House Publishing a bit. I found some obscure citations.

I reviewed the citations on Adblock a bit. They are a bit heavy with primary sources but the issues are covered by some good secondary sources.

I found some citations for Back for the Future but was not sure if it is notable.

I tagged Accelerade as AFD.

Vordrak (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Keep up the good work! You might explore the WikiProject Directory and find a subject you are interested in. It's also satisfying to collaborate with others on some stressfree articles. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Edit to remove inappropriate category. Vordrak (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories etc.

I'm always happy to respond. :-) Cat-a-lot appears to be a new tool, still...and it's actually ceased working for me, for some reason. I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with it. But when it does work it's tremendously useful for administrative stuff. If you like I can direct you to the script.

By the by, thanks for the kind words at my RfA. They're much appreciated. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I have a lot of scripts right now (some work and some don't seem to work) but I'd like to see what you use. HotCat is pretty fast and lets you select from existing categories in a drop-down list so the editor doesn't make an inadvertent mistake and types in the wrong category name. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. More fun tomorrow...I have the first meeting of another board on which I sit. At 9 in the morning. A half-hour's drive away. *sigh*
I'll get back to you later tonight on Cat-a-lot...I have to dash off again shortly. I've used HotCat quite a bit as well, and quite like it also. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find Cat-a-lot invaluable on Commons (the only project where I’ve used it), where it’s a Gadget, but of course the nature of the content there and the usage of categories are both quite different from what we have here. It‘s very unforgiving of mis-clicks—a moment’s cluelessness once cost me an hour of manual cleanup—and it’s powerful enough that some think it should only be accessible by permission, like some of the semi-automatic tools here. I don’t know much about the technical side; all I can suggest in the way of troubleshooting is to disable any other scripts you have, in case of an incompatibility.—Odysseus1479 01:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cat-a-lot's up and running again. It's available here, if you'd like to install it. I've already gotten some very good use out of it and it's been less than a month; it's hugely useful for mass cleanup. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me with the link, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I'm still not clear on when a mass cleanup is called for. CFD decisions to rename categories happen by bot and I am leery of making mass changes involving categories because it's difficult to undo them without digging back into ones edit history. There are exceptions like right now I'm categorizing Signpost articles but it's not changing or renaming categories but actually categorizing them for the first time. Since I have to make judgment calls (if the content of the article cover certain subjects, it gets an additional category), I'm not comfortable doing the edits any faster than I'm working right now.
When I have some time, I'll have to look at some of the work you are doing to see how you are using this tool and under what kind of circumstances. Who knows, it might come in handy! I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's an example of the sort of thing I've done with it. Per the films WikiProject, all films under the categories in Category:American films by genre should also be categorized under Category:American films. Cat-a-lot allows me to select up to 200 at a time and move them over. If they don't need moving, nothing is done. If they do need moving, they're moved over. It saved a lot of time. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I may have posted on the wrong page but I was proposing a motion for a recusal on the workshop page as it was the only section I could find appropriate. Can you move if it's not to the correct venue? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hell in a Bucket. I assume you are speaking of this edit? A few points come to mind.
  • First, the workshop phase closed on June 7th so new information added to this page will not be considered.
  • Secondly, there were suggestions at the start of this case that both GorillaWarfare and Salvio giuliano recuse themselves which both arbitrator considered and rejected. I don't think anything has occurred in the intervening weeks that shows that both arbitrators will not be objective regarding the evidence offered in this case.
  • Finally, the proposed decision is due to be posted any day now. When it is posted, you are free to comment on the proposed findings of fact and remedies on the Proposed decision talk page, abiding by the editing guidelines of that page. But the arbitrators have been discussing this case among themselves for nearly two months now and it is highly unlikely for an arbitrator to recuse themselves at this late point in the case.
I hope these comments address your question. Liz Read! Talk! 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for your opinion on the likelihoods of it being passed but the question was where is the formal area to make that request. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a request for recusal posted at this stage of a case so I'm not sure. At the beginning of a case, it might be appropriate to post your request on the Main case talk page. In this particular case, recusal requests were posted during the first week of the case to GorillaWarfare's talk page, Salvio guiliano's talk page and the Workshop phase page and you can see the discussions that occurred at those links. Liz Read! Talk! 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that but as you can see User:Thryduulf who removed it thinks I know or should know where to place the formal request but so far he and another arb have not answered my question. I am impatient though. I do believe that the recent actions of GW does raise to the issue of a recusal needed. If you could ask them to answer the last part of the venue that would be great I'd appreciate it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you should know because (a) a quick look at Arbitration policy makes it clear; and (b) because you participated in the first request for GorrilaWarfare to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my statement above. Doug Weller and Thryduulf are, of course, correct and the proper steps for recusal can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal of arbitrators. Liz Read! Talk! 13:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I gave it a once over and it still doesn't say where. I did notice the part that once voting starts it won't be considered, it's important to get this motion in before that decision is posted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say make a request on the Committee talk page. Not a motion, it's something we would discuss privately and come to a decision which we would announce. It's possible that colleagues with a better institutional memory will have other suggestions which if they do someone will pass on. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will post it there now before the proposed decision is placed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

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

This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13.

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

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

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

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: losing content editors

Responding to your post on GW's page since hers is full enough.

I suspect that the question of how admins should treat 'content creators' is just one of those basic philosophical faults that has never been resolved. It was certainly a live issue when I first started editing. If the rules exist to get an encyclopedia written, then a record of specialized productive work IMO earns you a little more latitude for behavioral idiosyncrasies than would be given to someone with a blank slate. I suppose the alternative view is that the rules exist to manage behaviors, not individuals, so a given behavior is a problem warranting action regardless of who did it. But that would only really work if the individuals were more or less interchangeable in terms of productivity.

But I'm probably biased, since I like to pretend I mostly write articles instead of gabbing on the dramaboards like I have been for the last few days :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for outlining your position, Opabinia regalis. I think you are right on the money that it is behavior, not individuals that might need oversight. Edit-warring, for example, shouldn't be okay no matter what your status on Wikipedia is. I tend towards a more democratic model of governance where policies and guidelines are evenly applied no matter what variety of contributions an editor makes to the project. I know that the reality is that there is an element of subjective judgment in many admin decisions where the identity of the editor will have some influence, either pro or con. But I think the goal is to minimize that factor per policies like Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins where admins who might have strong POVs defer or refer administrative action to an uninvolved admin.
That's my philosophy although I am unfamiliar with the daily realities that administrators actually face since I'm just an editor. I've seen many disputes on noticeboards but most admin decisions don't play out in front of an audience but are actions between an admin and an editor which may or may not be noted on the editor's talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the concept of "involved" is narrower than what I'm getting at. Involvement is about a specific admin's relationship to a specific editor, article, or dispute, but what I mean is a more general matter of how squishy the rules are. By the time a dispute between long-term established editors has reached the point of needing intervention, there's a lot of ego involved. Responding to the disaggregated behaviors of the participants by dispassionately applying the rules has some abstract appeal - "Look, we treat all of our contributors equally!" - but the flip side of that is, you're telling the disputants "You're no better than any other common vandal or POV-pusher or troll who gets himself reported." Which, to someone who's put a lot of personal pride into their contribution history, sounds a lot like "Fuck you."
But, I come from a technical background where there's a strong culture of tolerating poor behavior in proportion to talent and productivity, and that does come with its own pile of systemic-bias issues. A good reason for more diversity among the admin population IMO. Sounds like you're thinking about it and I think you should go for it.
Sorry for filling up your talk page; I wasn't going to blather on so much but I happened to notice this block as pretty much exactly the kind of thing I mean. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you weren't blathering on, I'm enjoying this conversation. We have two different points of view but that doesn't mean there is no commonality. As for Cassianto, I'd feel more sympathy if I wasn't 100% sure he would tell me to fuck off if I ever posted on his talk page. He has no respect for the activities I work on at Wikipedia (that is, wikignoming and not content creation) but there is room here for lots of different types of editors so I hope he waits out his block and returns to productive editing when it is over.
The one thing I don't get with these blocks is why is it so hard for some people to be civil? Just don't call people names and cuss them out. We expect civil behavior from children, I don't understand why we can't expect it from adults. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #164

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

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

People looking back in the archives will now find this op-ed a bit harder to understand. Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check that, I went and found the spam blacklist so I could re-add it. Can you avoid substantively changing the stories in the archives, please? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I needed to delete the link, Ed, in order to create a page that transcludes that article. The system kept rejecting saving the page because change.org is a website that is on the blacklist. I went back after the page I was working on was created to undo my edit but it was rejected so I filed a request to whitelist this page.
I think the case is pretty straight-forward as the link was originally in this article when it was published so it should be okayed. But it seems like there is a slow response to cases on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist so it might take a month or two. I hope this gets resolved so that the link is allowed back into the article along with the page I just created that contains this article. If there is any way you know to expedite my request, that would be very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the Signpost archives since April and this is the first edit I've made to an article and I've categorized hundreds of articles. I don't think it will be repeated. If it, for some odd reason, occurs again, I'll post the request first. Liz Read! Talk! 16:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re whitelist, that would be helpful, but I have no idea how to expedite it. Thank you for agreeing to post a request in the future :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: June 2015

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


I understand, thank you!

Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #165

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you again!

Webmarkez-ca (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. 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
    2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

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


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proposals for a Palestinian state

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Goalie1998's talk page.
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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you tell me where I said this? Liz Read! Talk! 11:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Technical 13 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&oldid=670513210"