# User talk:EllenCT

## Please comment on Talk:Monkey Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monkey Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

## The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-02

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:List of best-selling music artists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-03

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

## WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

• Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
• One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
• Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-04

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-05

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Housing in the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Housing in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-06

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Erik Buell Racing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Buell Racing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-07

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Dollar Shave Club

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dollar Shave Club. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-08

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

## WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Israeli lira

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israeli lira. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-09

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-10

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Ford Pinto

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ford Pinto. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-11

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Ale Resnik

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ale Resnik. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-12

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-13

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amway. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

## "Women are everywhere"

Hi EllenCT. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kenzia: thank you so much for your kind invitation. Have you seen http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0038-23532015000300001&script=sci_arttext ? EllenCT (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes EllenCT, i've just seen it, thank you for the information. Grazie,--Kenzia (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: The article http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0038-23532015000300001&script=sci_arttext is really interesting. "There can be no more excuses". So very true. We must all do something. That's the reason why I'm trying to collaborate with the project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere I hope to have your support. Sincerely,--Kenzia (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EllenCT for your support! Grazie. --Kenzia (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-14

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chrysler. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

## FYI

Not sure why the 😐 😒 .. you need to stay non-partisan? wbm1058 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: thank you for the informative update! What does, "One can only hope that the Signpost scoop that he will be the running mate of Donald Trump University is dead wrong" mean? I probably misunderstood you. EllenCT (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a little Before and After fun: "Before & After", a common category on the American game shows Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy!
You have heard about the Trump University controversy? A prime example of the issue with education being driven by the primary motivation of making money off the students.
So I definitely don't want to see Wales endorsing Trump, much less running on his ticket.
I have little faith that President Hillary would do much more to solve the issue than implement an Obamacare type of band-aid. wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-01/News and notes, in case you didn't see that. There's been some controversy around that, too. An un-funny joke disparaging a living person. I have mixed feelings about the man, but this meme about his "small hands" should be put to bed. wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-15

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:John Carter (film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Carter (film). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-16

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

## WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Biodynamic agriculture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Biodynamic agriculture. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-17

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-18

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-19

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

## Underreported stories

I missed your reply (14:16, 8 May 2016) to my post (18:19, 6 May 2016) until after the discussion was archived at 02:54, 10 May 2016, to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 207#Underreported stories, and I found it when I was searching on that page for something else. My reply to your reply is: I do not know what their criteria are.
Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

## Notice of report to administrators noticeboard

I am required to notify you that you will be named in a complaint to the administrators' notice board.Phmoreno (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe you will not again be subject to WP:BOOMERANG?[132] EllenCT (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Graduate School. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-20

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

## Diacritics in article titles: mass creation of redirects from unadorned ASCII?

Howdy. Unfortunately our conversation on Jimmy's talk page was archived, so I'll write any interesting thoughts I have here. I was thinking, shouldn't all names with a diacritical equivalent have diacritics in the title? Working out the English transliteration is going to be much easier than working out which diacritics are used when. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ${\displaystyle C:title\rightarrow C:url}$. Ref.: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 71#Diacritics in article titles: mass creation of redirects from unadorned ASCII?. EllenCT (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel like I understand WP:TSC well enough to be able to rebut irate Wikipedians sternly enough. See this requested move as a recent example. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I have recently been involved in unintentional canvassing. As a duty of care, I must inform you that the purpose of my posting the above link was not to votestack, merely to illustrate how much current opinion is stacked against the use of diacritics. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
how do you propose to keep from accidentally including offensive terms in automatically generated redirects? I am afraid that problem makes the idea of a bot for WP:TSC unlikely to be successful. EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

would you rather figure out the impolite corner cases[139] or do awesome work to improve the encyclopedia? EllenCT (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The diacritics work is fairly trivial to do, but quite useful, I don't see as a corner case. I do not have a Pinterest account - I don't know what (pin-)point you are making here. I would use Octave to create a graph, or write an SVG directly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC).
how do you propose to keep from accidentally including offensive terms in automatically generated redirects? Forget Pinterest. What is your interest level in making a WP:MOSTEDITED-style list of the lowest quality popular articles for the WP:BACKLOG? EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean names such as Bum-suk? I don't think these redirects are a problem, however offensive. They are redirects. We have explicit rules allowing offensive redirects if they are useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
which rules allow that? I'd be afraid someone's name without diacritics could be the name of an animal. Here's what I have so far: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Python help please? EllenCT (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a diacritics redirect but a transliteration choice in that case. But the same principles apply.

if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms

— WPRFD
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC).
fair enough and fine with me, but what do you need to ask permission to do this? WP:BAG and an Arbcom remedy amendment, in that order? Don't forget to fill them out in triplicate. EllenCT (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

## Tech News: 2016-21

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Anarchism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talkcontribs)

I deny the allegations and have asked for a restriction on Phmoreno's editing. EllenCT (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-22

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Emma Watson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emma Watson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ellen, I believe you know my political views. As an academic, one of my main topics of interest is economic inequality, and I am a firm believer in a universal basic income. I am probably one of a small minority who would support a very high tax on unearned income, a 100% inheritance tax, and a 100% tax on income derived from land. Even though I share your political leanings, I feel that your aggressiveness on Wikipedia is actually detrimental the cause of making sure that Wikipedia is not distorted by the systemic bias that comes from the fact that people who edit Wikipedia are predominately white, male, libertarian, technology users. The work of making sure that Wikipedia presents facts, and and not right-wing bigotry, requires cooperation from a broad coalition of people who want the encyclopedia to reflect scientific facts (which have a well-known liberal bias {smirk}). This work would be easier if we relax a bit, assume good faith from other editors, and try to work towards consensus among people interested in a topic, and work hard towards honestly backing our edits with reliable sources. I feel that your recent interaction with Volunteer Marek was not helping things. Marek is a good guy and a good editor, it's not helpful to turn likely allies into enemies (something Donald Trump can't seem to learn, so hopefully he will lose in a landslide this November {smirk again}). If you would be a little less sure that you know the truth, and be a little bit more willing to listen and compromise, I think you'll contribute a lot more to this encyclopedia. regards, LK (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

what is your opinion of User:Wnt's comments on Talk:Economic growth? I have not edited that article this year, but I think Wnt had some very good advice. He pointed out what Marek had deleted, agrees with our policies that actual literature reviews are more reliable than review sections of primary research papers, and provided some very specific advice that I intend to follow. I am also interested in your opinion of James K. Galbraith's assertion that,
Do you believe that economists generally underestimate the long term trends modulating demand from consumer spending and net worth? Our articles are salted with supply side trickle down nonsense; tax incidence for example. What do you propose to address the systemic bias to which you refer? EllenCT (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that you are taking my comments in the spirit they were given in. As for your questions, I think Wnt is editing in good faith, and that what he's saying makes sense. However, it's also pretty obvious that he's not familiar with the literature. But such is the way of wikipedia. It's up to Marek to bring sources to back his statements to convince Wnt. Marek's dismissiveness reflects, to some extent, the fact that he knows the economics literature, and needs to convince people who do not, that what he's saying is right. I'm going to have a talk with Marek, as he needs to be more patient. I think that he's been contributing to the tension lately, and he could stand to be more civil. About the Galbraith quote, some strategies that may work in government, are not necessarily the best strategies to pursue in a collegial environment. Bulldozing things through doesn't really work in Wikipedia. At the end of the day, stuff only sticks if we have managed to convince the other editors that it accurately reflects the literature. LK (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
do you think I should ask about Marek's sources on WP:RSN before or after taking Wnt's advice to restore the material deleted at [153]? EllenCT (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
In a contentious situation, Wikipedia policy and best practice is to refrain from inserting material until there is consensus for inclusion. Whenever things are contentious, as in this case, I would ask on the notice board first. If consensus cannot be reached, even after response from the notice board, then hold a RFC on the issue. LK (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
my experience observing the RSN is that there aren't enough people responding to keep my WP:TAGTEAM from getting there first with the usual vapid series of pro forma rationales without details and with no responses to requests for details. User:Wnt has already surmised the situation in the way I believe any sufficient number of generally unbiased Wikipedians familiar with the reliable source criteria would. How about if I replace the deleted material first, and then ask at WT:NPOV whether the question on the use of review sections of primary research opposed to the consensus of fully WP:SECONDARY literature reviews reaching a conclusion, which I know is still the situation on the underlying topic, is most appropriate for mention in WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, or on the reliable sources noticeboard, or an RFC? EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In some respects, Wikipedia is a democracy of those who are present. However, in this case, I feel that you may not be getting the response you would like from the noticeboard, perhaps because the members don't see things the way you do, or they believe that the situation is muddied and hard to comment on. If you are sure that a group of impartial reasonable people would support you, and that WP:Local consensus does not reflect the views of the community as a whole, then the best thing is to call a RfC, and advertise it on the Economics project talk page. If you do not think that a group of impartial reasonable people would support you, then it's best to drop the issue. Over the years, I've come to appreciate the Wikipedia system. More often than not, with our insistence on procedure and on sources, a group of impartial strangers will correctly agree about what reflects the scientific literature. LK (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@EllenCT: I think there's a bit of difference between your emphasis and mine, in that I don't actually object to using literature reviews in primary sources; I simply object to removing sources that are relevant. I feel like Marek lobbies hard for his particular point of view, and you do try to see yours represented also, and that wouldn't have to be a bad thing, if everyone sticks to adding more and more sources and viewpoints. To my way of thinking, POV only becomes a problem when people start deleting stuff, and my impression during the short time I looked at the article is that Marek does that more than you. So I think that the most productive thing to get together for your RFC is a list of all the sources that you think are good that have been taken out/reverted at some point in the development of the article. I want all those, plus whatever text it takes to wind a garden path among them. But do note I wouldn't deny Marek the same thing; what I want is a big article studded with facts that lies out multiple disagreeing points of view and explains each one well enough that we know why people say it is right and why they say it is wrong. Wnt (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
impartial reasonable people support me, and I am sure I could get my opposition to agree with me if they would engage.
@Wnt: I agree, simply replacing the deleted material is the best idea, but I feel like I should do something else first. EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Undue use of primary source literature review sections to delete material in Economic growth. EllenCT (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-23

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-24

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

## You are involved in an incident on the Administrators notice board

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive edits. The discussion is about the topic Economic stagnation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talkcontribs)

## Tech News: 2016-25

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

## Other user's talkpages.

Read WP:Blanking and the accompanying essay WP:DRC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is regarding [169], a warning about [170]. EllenCT (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

John placed the warning which was subsequently seen and removed by Phmoreno as is his right on his talkpage. You then reverted the warning back onto their talkpage - you were obviously able to see it had been removed and the revision history is clear. There are limited items which have to remain on a user's talkpage. Warnings are not one of them per the above links. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would feel more comfortable if the warning remained, but I am more interested in improving the encyclopedia than arguing for badges of shame. EllenCT (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

## Notice of Community Sanction

I have closed the ANI thread about you with the following result: EllenCT (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all edits and pages related to Economics, broadly construed. Formal logging of this restriction can be found here. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I intend to appeal this decision after the close of the two RFCs, in order to apply for mediation if necessary. EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That is, of course, your right. Also note that I'm considering amending the restriction, specifically removing "pages", because it might be too restrictive with unintended consequences. I'm examining precedent and considering a new wording, and will let you know if I alter it. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that I have rephrased the restriction as follows: EllenCT (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the topic of economics, broadly construed. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's best to start an ArbCom case. While ArbCom is far from ideal, it's better than AN/I. ArbCom will look at behavior issues of all the involved editors, while AN/I tends to focus mainly on a single editor who is the topic of discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
AN, not AN/I. Also Arbcom will hear an appeal for imposed sanctions, but they wont hear a request for Arbitration on 'Economics' as that is not covered by WP:BANEX. So if the plan is to re-argue the content dispute, I would think twice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I would go for a full ArbCom case on Economics, certainly not an appeal of the ban. Because the ban was done by the book, there is little to argue on procedural grounds about that. If there is a problem (I'm not saying there is, but Ellen does think so), it is with the editing of the economics topics, so that's what she'll need to address. Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thats not an exception under WP:BANEX so would be a violation of the topic ban. This doesnt prevent someone else starting an arbcom case on it, but unless you are appealing the ban, or clarifying the scope, everything else is off the table. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, you and I have had our disagreements. Putting those aside, I think you have a lot to offer to the project. Take a wikibreak to digest this including the meaning of a topic ban. If you can understand why this happened and learn from it, there's plenty of work to be done. While I personally have not been subject to the same level of criticism, there was a point where I was getting in too deep and I just stopped editing for a while. Try it, and then come back. Let this one go.Mattnad (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

## WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9

Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assurant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-26

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-27

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Template talk:Infobox company

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

## Meta ping

Making sure you get the ping. I asked you question on meta! Thanks! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-28

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-29

12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Accompong. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

## AE

Thanks for your support at AE. If you provide diffs of Kingofaces43 following you around it will bolster your argument. It also would show further evidence of my claims in paragraph 1. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How could the arbitrators think that is even in dispute? He's gone to such great lengths to try to get me to stop mentioning what he said was the best source about bees and neonics, including repeatedly in front of the arbitrators. I am sure the arbitrators are aware that "casting aspersions" is synonymous with "doubting" per their dictionary definitions. You know who brought that phrase back into the contemporary lexicon? Louie Gohmert[206], our bastion of rationality. EllenCT (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-30

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

## ARCA notice

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Truck. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

## Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 The following sanction now applies to you: EllenCT is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned for the reasons enumerated at the arbitration enforcement request: [214]. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
is discussion of suspected motivations distinct from discussion of potential motivations? EllenCT (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Don't do either of them. If you try to game this sanction, you will face further sanctions such as a block or topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No, there's no difference, and you may not do either. You may certainly still disagree with edits for some reason or another (neutrality, weight, any of our content policies), and may disagree with or suggest improvement to content, but comment on the edit, not the editor. That's the general expectation in any case, but apparently in your case, that needs to be enforced. You should not be commenting or speculating on other editors' motivations, especially not in a hostile fashion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Seraphimblade is this basically an enforcement of WP:NPA? Just curious. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Please read the discussion at my talk page. That's why I prefer to keep it at one or the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

## Free to Speak

If for some reason (glances at the section above this) you feel, say, a bit constrained from speaking your mind about an issue on Wikipedia, you might want to try registering over at Wikipediocracy. The site has a more 'laissez-faire' approach to discussions there.StaniStani 05:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I read Wikipediocracy frequently, but I can't stand Greg Kohs and the paid editor clique who want to run roughshod over NPOV for their own enrichment to the benefit of corporations, and don't want to participate anywhere they are considered reasonable, let alone as heroes to the even more pernicious "hasten the day" clique who actively try to damage the perceptions of would-be volunteers. I do appreciate the invitation, though, and from what I know of you personally, I have deep respect for you and admiration for your work. EllenCT (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand your reasons. Thank you for the kind words. Good luck with your endeavors here.StaniStani 05:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

## EOQ Equation

It seems so minor it's hardly worth mentioning, but is there some way that you see this edit as not violating your topic ban from Economics? GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a redirect in an operations research topic which happens to have the word "economic" in its title, meaning "optimal" in this case. Do you think the article is about economics? EllenCT (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Dont be disingenuous. Its a Production economics article in the Category Production economics, it contains material sourced from the international journal of production economics as well as the journal of economics - from an article titled "Economic Theory and the World of Practice: A Celebration of the (S,s) Model" no less. If you are seriously attempting to argue that this does not fall under 'economics broadly construed' then there is a CIR issue here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Did you even try clicking on your first link? EllenCT (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What the one where the *first line* states "Production theory is the study of production, or the economic process of converting inputs into outputs."? Clearly one of us did. But this is not a discussion, since you are topic banned from discussing economics. This is a warning, if you make further edits in economic-related articles, the first stop will be AE, no matter how minor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What harm to the encyclopedia do you think I have done such that you feel obligated to construe so broadly and prosecute me? EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You have done enough harm to the encyclopaedia that you've acquired two topic bans in the past few weeks, one from the community and another from AE. Please: Stay away from the areas from which you're banned and don't try to wikilawyer around the edges of them. That's not a discussion, or a warning; it's free advice. GoldenRing (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-31

21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

## Digital Anthropology research

Hello EllenCT, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely,Stelba90 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stelba90: thank you for your thoughtful questions. Here are my answers: 1. No, editing is never war, just as deaths are not collateral or casual. 2. I realized early on that the most controversial issues correspond to the frontiers of human knowledge. 3. I don't know. 4. As per gender. 5. Yes, please tell me your own answers to these questions and please post the URL to your project working repository. EllenCT (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

## ARCA archived

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

## Second ARCA archived

A second clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-32

15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-33

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

## The Signpost: 18 August 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-34

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-35

16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Busy weekend so I never responded before the convo on Jimbo's page was archived. Not to belabor it but BTI IS sprayed: https://www.epa.gov/mosquitocontrol/bti-mosquito-control http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23082582 In fact that's how it is applied most commonly on large scales. Capeo (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Capeo: why would they not want a time-released form? EllenCT (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The time release is simply bricks made from a matrix that is friendly to the bacteria. It dissolves slowly in water releasing fresh, live bacteria as it does so. It's good for larger bodies of contained water but is insufficient for mosquito control on a large scale. It's mostly used, as far as I can tell, for home and businesses that have ponds, holding tanks and the like. Spraying is used because it's the only viable way to treat all the water in large areas. Bear in mind these mosquitos reproduce in 3-4 days and require nothing more than a tiny short lived puddle. Capeo (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Capeo: the bits are supposed to dissolve slowly too. Did you find anything to suggest that it wasn't originally released in a form that lasted five years in the field? EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be thinking that BTI is a chemical. It's a living bacterium. It doesn't have a "form" just different delivery systems. It dies in sunlight quickly. It always has and always will as its natural habitat is below ground. Looking at the original patent it lived for 44 days in a perfect lab environment. I'm not sure where you get this five year stuff honestly. In the late nineties efforts began to genetically modify it to produce more toxins and be more UV resistant with some good results. It has only gotten MORE effective since its discovery, not less. Just put Bacillus thuringiensis into pubmed, jstor, Google scholar, whatever, and you'll get a pretty good idea of its origins and evolution in use since then. Capeo (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Capeo: are you looking at US patent 4,166,112? Where do you see 44 days? EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-36

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-37

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-38

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-39

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

## Hidey ho

Hey Ellen, haven't seen you around the Traffic Report in a few months, always enjoyed your participation. Perhaps you've moved on to new areas of interest. Just wanted to say hello Cheers.--Milowenthasspoken 12:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:University of Queensland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:University of Queensland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)