User talk:LZia (WMF)

Welcome!

Hello, LZia (WMF), 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, LZia (WMF). You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Quickserveys.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Melamrawy (WMF) is coordinating and communicating our responses to the thread questions/comments. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone uses a talkback template then that person is probably not watching your talkpage, so if you want to respond then you should do it on the page mentioned in the talkback template. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usergroups notice

You may have an alert that your usergroups were updated, this will have no impact on you, you are now a member of autoconfirmed, making confirmed redundant. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note here. The email was unexpected, but I figured someone has an eye on me.

Thank you! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing

A while back, you very kindly told me about the thread at phab about Ask new users on Wikimedia sites to disclose paid editing. I want to let you know that en-Wiki has adopted an alternative approach at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Article Wizard Redesign that asks new users starting articles about conflict of interest and paid editing, and points them in the right direction. At least here at en-Wiki, that is likely to be a better approach than the one that I had proposed earlier, so the importance of the phab task is now somewhat reduced. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Thank you for the follow-up and letting me know. I just went over Article Wizard Redesign suggested. I have a couple of questions/suggestions related to the Common Mistakes page. Bear in mind that I'm neither a fluent enwiki editor (which may make me a perfect audience for this wizard;), nor a designer. With that in mind:

The page starts by listing 3 common mistakes as bullet points which is cool. Then, I'm offered three options to choose from. It is not clear "why" I'm asked to click on these options, and also the options are logically related to perhaps one of the bullet points above, but not to all. Have you considered bringing the first bullet point to the last position right before the three buttons, and also adding a sentence after that bullet point to give context about the buttons? For example, something like: "Although writing about subjects that you are closed to is generally discouraged, there may be reasons that you may want to still write about those subjects. Please click on each of the following options to learn how you should handle each case."

In any case, nice changes. I will update the phabricator task so we're aware of this change if we come back to the question at some future time. Thanks! :) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! About your ideas about revisions, I think that you raise some interesting and helpful points. On the other hand, I haven't really been involved in creating the wizard, beyond expressing my support for it. Also, the community was particularly enthusiastic about that exact page, as it is, so I'm not sure how likely it might be to change it. (To me, the three buttons do not correspond directly to the three common mistakes, but rather are related in a general way and provide a decision point before going to the next step.) I'm pinging Drewmutt, who started the RfC, so that he can see what you said here, and he would be better positioned to respond about it than I am. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish Thanks for the ping! @LZia (WMF): Thanks a ton for all the input, it's great feedback! Tryptofish was right that the page in question was the most contentious for obvious reasons. That said, I don't see any reason why adding a small sentence to introduce the options would be an issue, although the wording of it would need to be crafted carefully. I think the community would be fine with moving it to the bottom, although, and not mutually exclusive, something like "Taking the above into consideration, what's your position relative to the subject?" might work. Either way, I think a better home for the convo would be over here. Feel free to add another section there, and we can get it cookin'. See ya over there, and thanks again! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk

@Drewmutt: I like your suggested text (it's much more concise, for one), especially if you move the first bullet point to the third place so it's clearer what "above" is referring to. Thank you for the link, too. I put the suggestion there. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help request for mapping section titles

Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).

(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.) If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-04-25, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmansurov (WMF): This looks good to me. The only change you should make is to change the end date 2 weeks from the time you send the message. So if you're planning to send them out today, please make the deadline 2018-05-01. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good to me. --Bmansurov (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Research regarding ENWP dispute resolution processes and possible improvements

Hi Leila, I think that researching the level(s) of confidence people have in ENWP's current dispute resolution processes, and what types of changes people would be most interested in piloting for potential widespread use, could be useful. My guess is that some research might have already been done to support the design of the partial blocks feature. In addition to researching the community's interest in various types of technical changes for dispute resolution processes, perhaps WMF could ask what types of training admins would be most interested in receiving if it was offered. I am not an expert in ANI and there may be additional types of research that would also be good to consider executing. Research could be done through a combination of consultations, surveys, and analysis of behavioral data.

I think that these types of research could be done with far less controversy than unilateral WMF intervention in ENWP's governance, and these types of research likely would get community interest and support especially if WMF is willing to fund pilot projects that correspond to what is learned from the research.

Thanks, --Pine (✉) 21:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits

Hi, in this edit you removed a comment by another editor in another thread. I have restored the comment. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: thanks for pointing it out and fixing the issue. I appreciate it. (I have some on and off issue on this page, too, when I attempt to respond. I'll do some debugging on my end as I'm not sure if all of it is explained by edit conflicts.) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found WP:VP/T to be very helpful when mysterious editing glitches strike. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did that section go?

Your edit actually produced this outcome, which probably means you had an edit conflict and didn't know what you were conflicting with (sometimes a problem with the 2-column resolver beta feature and/or 2017 WTE). --Izno (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Thanks for your follow-up and help. I'm continuing to have a similar problem on this page, too (which I doubt is due to edit conflicts given the frequency of edits I expect on this page). For example, I can't currently respond to the comment in User_talk:LZia_(WMF)#One_of_your_edits unless I click Edit source on the full page. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info re leads

Hi LZia,

I was referred to you by User:Rosiestep. I am a graduate student in English at the University of Idaho, working on my thesis about, in part, Wikipedia studies from a literature perspective. I've heard at different conferences the last couple of years that the leads for bios about women and articles about traditionally female interests tend to be shorter than similar bios and articles about men. Actually, I thought that it was Rosie I heard make that assertion, but I wasn't sure, so I asked and she told me that you might have access to some research about that, or at least a source that will support it. Do you? I'd appreciate your assistance in this matter. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureskatingfan: Thank you for reaching out. It is very nice to get to know you as a Wikimedia researcher. :) I can't immediately remember a study that answers your exact question. I suggest that you send an email to wiki-research-l and ask. The study that immediately comes to my mind when reading your question is this one where the authors study structural differences in Wikipedia articles about different genders. Given your particular interest, I also encourage you to check the references in page 21 of this (white) paper where we build a taxonomy of knowledge gaps.

I also would like to offer you to check out our upcoming research events. You may particularly be interested in submitting your ongoing research to Wiki Workshop (first deadline, Feb. 3 and second March 10) and/or attending one of our monthly office hours or research showcases.

Good luck with your research, and please stay in touch and let me know if I can help! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LZia. I may hop onto one of the office hours or showcases, and if I think it'll fit, submit my thesis for one of the conferences. I'll also contact Wiki Research, thanks for the contact info. I would love to be a part of the Wikimedia researching community; of course, it depends upon what PhD program I get accepted into, if any at all. In the meantime, I'll stay in contact. Please let me know how I and the English dept. at the University of Idaho can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]