Jump to content

User talk:Liz/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"

NBA awards categories

Hi, could you please add the basketball awards discussion notifications at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association as well? I would but I do not know how to do that. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Suuuuuuure, Hoops gza. ;-) It was kind of complicated but at this point, I can copy and paste what I posted at WikiProject Basketball. Thanks for being open to hearing the voices of others. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #82

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The conflict

If you want to cut through to the core of the dispute; it boils down to basic organization more so than any concrete policy issue. Ryulong doesn't believe there should be different articles for anime and manga. I point to Harry Potter and how the movies and books are covered; noting that despite a very faithful adaptation different articles exist. The latest issues are amongst the largest and most notable of all anime. Each one more than 100 hours long and making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The Wikiproject is highly aligned against adaptations and their respective cast lists, reception, non-English dubs, music, themes and production segments. These are all segments that are perfect for stand alone articles. We can't even discuss a set index or disamb for Ghost in the Shell because Ryulong wants the manga to be page despite being part of 30+ works containing the name and a film and video game using the same name. And rather than let it take a natural form, listings of the media, even briefly, get removed as "not important".[1] There needs to be an intervention. Arb Com or not; hundreds of articles are affected and the entire scope of the project is deeply affected by the handful of editors of A&M who follow Ryulong's lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I don't know who is right and who is wrong, I just sense that if you and Ryulong show up one more time at AN/I, you'll both get blocked. I know nothing about anime or manga and I assume most Editors don't either so the details of the dispute are lost on me. All I notice are you and Ryulong at AN/I at least once a week, for the past two months. AN/I isn't a place to settle content issues. My advice is either go back to dispute resolution or file a request at ARBCOM but these weekly visits to AN/I are going to backfire soon. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I did not anticipate Knowledgekid's bring it to ANI - I was not informed or contacted prior to it. I sent a message inquiring about ArbCom yesterday, but pending response and this ANI's closure I believe I will be seeking it. Ryulong doesn't want to sit down and discuss, but Arb Com is not voluntary. These constant little battles over basic policy are disruptive to the community, but I hope you understand that repeatedly blanking and redirecting pages with 40 or more sources rightfully troubles me and my first response is to restore and state "take it to AFD per WP:BLAR". This is what provoked the ANI from Knowledgekid. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
From what I've gleaned from participating in a recent ARBCOM case, what's important in presenting a case request is
  • Be concise. Do not go on and on, there are strict word limits (I believe 500 words). Do not waste words in a request, you can go into details if a case is accepted. If you go on too long, you will be asked to cut down your stratement. That doesn't start the request off on a positive note.
  • Have diffs ready that are examples of the pattern of behavior or interactions that is causing a disruption.
  • Do not use a request to make personal attacks. Stay focused on conduct, not personalities.
  • Have individuals willing to write brief statements supporting your position.
  • It really helps to have evidence that a) you tried, repeatedly, to work things out and b) that you can work constructively with other Editors in fruitful collaborations. Otherwise, it could appear that it is a problem you have working with others.
Just some unasked for advice. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I must admit that this is the last place I wanted this to go, but I suppose I should spend a few hours researching the history and running through everything. I've grown to become a better person and deal with conflict throughout this ordeal. I believe I could get it to about 250 words, but what do you mean by have people willing to write brief statements? And does this run afoul of canvassing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought, but you might think about waiting a couple months before filing an Arbcom case. There will be a new committee then and you might have better luck getting it accepted/getting a sensible solution. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
For opposing a lengthy ban on a broad range of articles despite supporting some sort of ban. Moderation is a rare thing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How unexpected, MilesMoney! Even though I disagree with you on, well, just almost everything, I think you offer a unique perspective to Wikipedia. I don't want you to quit editing, I just want you to work harder at consensus (i.e. try to play nicely with others!). Short bans can reinforce good behavior, lengthy bans or bans that basically forbid an Editor from contributing to their main subjects of interest, simply drive Editors away. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: you acted in good faith. By opposing a fatal ban, you showed that, whatever your concerns were, this wasn't just a way to get rid of me. Contrast this with the participants who've revealed through words and actions that this is their goal.
Given how good a job Wikipedia does at driving away contributors, your willingness to work with even those you disagree with is the sort of reasonable attitude that, if only it were more common, might reverse the decline of this site. Or, realistically, if only admins shut down these assassination attempts instead of enabling them.
In any case, I would have given this Barnstar to you sooner, but I wanted to wait until the report was locked down, so that it wouldn't appear as if this was an attempt to sway you. I genuinely wish the you best of luck, as you have been a Wikipedia rarity: an honorable opponent. MilesMoney (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I know this is heresy but, as a sociologist, the process of creating the encyclopedia is as important to me as the actual content. Wikis are a modern invention, a unique effort of group collaboration. They often succeed when they focus on a specific topic (like a TV show or a programming language) and there is a homogeneous group of like-minded individuals. But the fact that Wikipedia tries to take on every aspect of knowledge, well, it is a miracle that it is still up and running and hasn't imploded, especially considering that there are individuals actively trying to disrupt it through vandalism.
I'm not sure if you've read about the wisdom of crowds, but crowd sourcing works when there is a wide diversity of perspectives, attitudes and talents. It's not just having a large group of people, each devoting a little time to create some big project but the fact that they represent so many different points of view that it can cancel out bias, particularly cultural bias which is invisible almost everyone.
Thanks again for the compliment. It's a nice antidote to the rancor one comes across on the noticeboards. Have a good weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Well said Liz. Nobody can stand Miles. He's so feisty. But he's one of the best and most productive editors and knowledgeable in a broad range of content. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL! I wouldn't expect you to say that, SPECIFICO, since you are such a loyal defender. I was just reading the user page of a particularly productive editor and their main piece of advice? Stay away from AN/I! The drama boards are a time sink, they suck all of your energy and leave one with the feeling that Wikipedia is going to hell.
Meanwhile, there are thousands of Editors, making contributions and going about their business, not lodging complaints, putting in the time and effort to get the articles in better shape, reverting vandalism, finding citations, editing awkward language into smooth prose. It's definitely not as exciting as going to battle but, you know, these Editors tend to last longer on Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not afraid to stand my ground but I am selective about the battles I take on. It helps to be a little detached from your work...it's not easy but it helps it not to sting when someone chooses to delete something you just wrote. Still stings a little. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
We are in agreement. Miles is like the young mongrel puppy who has two different ears, a bristly coat, and keeps running in circles with too much energy. However I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's a Rhodes Scholar as well. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I appreciate how you bring empathy and subtlety to these pages. Both of those are extraordinarily rare in ANIs. Steeletrap (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Steeletrap, that's refreshing to hear. I get my share of grief (as I imagined you do, too) for defending Editors that others have written off as "disruptive". In fact, I was told that in defending one person, I was "just as bad as he was" and, according to this Editor, that was pretty damn awful! I don't think long-time users of Wikipedia realize the amount of insider jargon, standards, history and practices which are unknown to newer Editors. After 4, 5, 8 years of blocking vandals, even mild rabble-rousers start looking like potential vandals to some Admins (not all, but a few!).
I know when I've done vast amounts of grading or copy-editing, that it's easy to ignore what is normal while ones eye is drawn to errors or whatever seems like it doesn't fit in. Whatever deviates from normal is exaggerated and, on Wikipedia, mild irritations become suddenly intolerable. I spent a fair amount of my academic life studying deviancy and one core concept is that once a person becomes "labeled", others treat them differently (usually negatively). So, I am really antsy when I see labels like "troll", "sock", "vandal" or "fringe" thrown around, usually just to see if they stick. They are labels that are difficult to overcome once a critical number of influential people in ones social circle accepts that it is an accurate description. </soapbox> Any way, have a good weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Liz, as a trans woman, I am all too well acquainted with the notion of the "Other" to which you are alluding. Miles is different from most people; all too often we are threatened by those who are different and seek to banish them rather than try to understand and find a place for them. Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, as a trans woman, Steeletrap, there is all the more reason why a project like Wikipedia needs your participation and to hear your perspective. My hope is that none of the Three Musketeers faces a block from editing the site but I can't tell which way the wind is blowing right now among the Admin crew. They have little patience when a dispute seems persistent and unlikely to be resolved. It helps to have allies who support you in these Noticeboard disputes. But what is even better than that is for those involved in a conflict to go through Dispute Resolution and find some way to work with each other. From what I've seen, in a "Last Person Standing" battle, there are often no winners. Peace. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at RedWolf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Magic Solution

But there is a magic solution. It just exists in a different universe, one in which magic works. So please don't be so dismissive of magic solutions. At least they may be the stuff of movies. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, the solution that was being proposed whose proponent thought it was so obvious that he didn't even repost it, so that an opponent had to repost it, isn't a solution to any problems of which I am aware. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this has to do with your comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales in response to an absurdly complicated reform proposal. You said that there was no magic solution. It is a magic solution in search of a problem in an alternate universe. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow "user expectations"

I happened to see your message at Wikipedia_talk:Flow#User_.22expectations.22 and it sounded intriguing. However I cannot locate the subject of your comment ( "user expectations"). There is no hurry, I know you are busy, but would you please add a wiik-link in your original message at talk-Flow? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Ottawahitech,
I think I found what I was referring to last month in that discussion thread, you can see it at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Clarification. However, I know that I also saw some other usability studies from the early- to mid-2000s cited and I can't find the list of these studies which I refer to as 5 year old studies. I hope this helps. Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiSym and OpenSym

I came across the proceedings from August's WikiSym + OpenSym 2013 located here. Full papers if you are interested in research on wikis. Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks so much for speaking the truth on the edit warring noticeboard. I've now launched a complaint of my own on the NPOV noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've watched, Alfonzo, with growing dismay, at how discussion has proceeded on that article Talk Page. I look at who is editing the Talk Page and then look at who is editing the article, and it's clear that a few users have taken over control of it. I really thought that after 2+ months, the more attentive Editors would have moved on to work on other articles but it's clear that a few are watching it like a hawk. New editors come to participate and then quickly get burned out and leave.
As for the NPOV noticeboard, that will be a challenge because once anything--a person, an idea, a theory, an organization--is labeled "fringe", it seems to be okay to dismiss and ridicule it. But even if some of Sheldrake's ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, they still need to be explained, in their own context, what they mean. Then, a critique can be offered. This is especially true in an article which is actually intended to be a biography, not an article about the subject itself. A person's biography requires a neutral point of view.
But thanks for the thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Neuschwanstein Castle citation style

Hello! I removed your {{citation style}} tag from Neuschwanstein Castle since it seems pretty consistent and clear to me. The article uses shortened footnote style, which, while not my favorite, is allowed. If you have a more specific reason why this article needs the tag, please feel free to add it back with an explanation on the talk page— maybe I missed something. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the reference section, Orange Suede Sofa, with all of those blaring red alerts? There is clearly a problem with the citations on this page and I don't know how to fix it. It's hideous looking. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I looked— and I didn't see any blaring red alerts and I don't see them now. I saw that you removed some warnings; maybe that took care of it? Having said that, I looked in the article history immediately before your edits and I didn't see any alerts there either. Maybe you have a setting which surfaces alarms (or I have a setting that hides them!)? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
That is bizarre. Because they are garish and just hideous. I've seen them on a couple different articles. Maybe I have some script or option in Preferences that makes errors stand out like that. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews

I'm interested in changing my username on Wikinews from User:Newjerseyliz to User:Liz. Liz Read! Talk! 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost archives

Regarding this comment you made: note that the categories were not created by the Signpost editors, but by another editor. The method used by the Signpost is the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives page mentioned in the deletion proposal. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, my point still stands, isaacl....if the categories are useful to Signpost, they should be kept. If not, they can be deleted. The WikiProject, group or discussion board should make that decision, not the handful of regulars at CfD. I wish we could get more Editors to participate in discussions there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that if the Signpost contributors said the categories were not useful then they should be deleted. So while their input is valued, it doesn't necessarily override the views of other editors on the utility of having the categories. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #83

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #84

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #85

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

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Wikiversity

I'm interested in changing my username on Wikiversity from User:Newjerseyliz to User:Liz. Liz Read! Talk! 13:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be done - can you check and let me know if any problems? -- Jtneill - Talk 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

New section on the Anime and Manga RfC

Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Sven Manguard :-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are online, help me

On the Eric Schmidt article talk page, I need to know if the PDF file I just linked to on ca.gov is OK to link to. I'm asking this because I just realized it shows personal information. I would like for you to go to this page and see if it is, because I don't think so. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 17:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd delete that entire comment on Eric Schmidt's Talk Page, if I were you, Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, . It was a $400 fine from 12 years ago, I don't think it's a major issue in his life and worth noting in his Wikipedia biography. Plus there are BLP issues and this does show private information. Trust your instincts! Court documents are not appropriate in this case. Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you ref delete it then? I think it's not OK what I did, I'm sorry. Also, ref delete the edit summary as well. Thinks.. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 17:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "ref delete". There is "rev delete" but I'm neither an Admin nor Oversighter so I don't have that ability. I think a simple delete or strike out will be okay (I'll go check after writing this). No need to apologize! We all learn through making mistakes. You look at anyone's Edit History, I'm sure you can find errors they've made. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks fine, Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, . You made an edit to a Talk Page and, within 20 minutes, you reconsidered it and deleted it. No harm, no foul. It shows that you can recognize an error you made and undo it. This is much more preferable than Editors who refuse to admit they make mistakes and edit war to make sure their version/comment stays. Those are the problem Editors, not ones that correct their mistakes! Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Change? Maybe yes, maybe no

I was reading an archived page of Jimmy Wales' talk page (being brought there by a direct link) and saw an Editor talking, with a tone of woe, about the problems on Wikipedia: Lack of due process in handing out blocks, a small number of articles getting intense scrutiny while the vast majority are in dismal shape, editors having to go to ARBCOM to find solutions to conflict with admins, good editors getting discouraged and leaving in frustration, users not being able to get over personal grudges, just stuff I come across every day since I've been active on Wikipedia.

So, the complaints were familiar, I found myself nodding my head saying to myself, "This is right on the nose!" But the punchline is that this was a comment posted on Wales page in 2007, more than 6 years ago. Now, this is either a sign that a) reform is nearly impossible within the Wikipedia structure as it is very resistant to change, b) the normal state of Wikipedia is dysfunctional or c) both of the above.

I'm not saying that editors, admins and arbitrators shouldn't strive to be more fair and even-handed in their dealings with each other or that it isn't worthwhile to try to improve things such as the diversity of editors, admins and ARBCOM. But I'm saying that we (I) need to give up the Wikipedia myth that it represents pure collaboration, equity and meritocracy.

Over and over again, I read editors reminding those they see going astray that "Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia (content), not social networking or the process." And yet, what Wikipedia is, is people and the things (articles, guidelines, conversations) that they create. It's inherently social, that's its strength, no one person or even small group of people could produce it, it takes tens of thousands, across the world. But because it is social, it is prone to the best and worst aspects of human nature...altruism, generosity, hard work, sacrifice and diligence but also jealousy, pride, sloth, gossip and, often, an ill temper (among its many quirks). I think new editors (and some old ones) believe that human vices can be transcended by just being true to the holy Five Pillars. But it ain't so.

Now, I expect seasoned editors, if they read this, will greet it all with a big yawn. This is news? No, it isn't, you only have to edit a few hours before you can see things are far from perfect. But I still think that when there is conflict and editors are being judged and sanctioned, they can be seen as failing to be "the ideal" when, the fact is, that no one is the ideal, it never existed. WP is really about working within our imperfections and the fact that with so many editors involved, that can be balanced out (e.g. deletionists and inclusionists are both needed).

A final thought: If I could make one change, it would be editors being kicked out for being "disruptive". Every edit, especially bold ones, is disruptive. Disruptive just means changing the status quo and because Wikipedia is in a constant state of evolution, it is in a constant state of disruption. What should be considered is whether an editor's acts are productive (adding, in a positive way to the betterment of WP and its culture) or destructive (harming WP and its culture). </soapbox> Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, the last paragraph made my day ;) - The first time I was called disruptive I felt promoted. - The last time we were called disruptive I inquired what it means and wait for an answer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you, Gerda, for reading my musings. I realize that much of this is old news, I just find it interesting to be reading old talk pages/candidate statements/arbitration debates, etc., and find some of the same issues being discussed then as today, concerns about privacy, impartiality, deliberateness, fairness, honesty, basically aspects of character. Of course, there has to be a knowledge of policy and precedent but it does come down to who do you trust. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is where the overlap occurs. What do we do with editors who are both productive (create great content), and destructive (make insulting comments, or edit-war regularly over subjective aspects, or etc)?
Most of the difficult problems in society, and Wikimedia, come down to the balance of Idealism vs Pragmatism (as I like to reduce it). We all have different (valid) opinions on every issue that involves these aspects. From Rehabilitation to Vegetarianism to m:Incrementalism. Issues of ethics, and issues of goals, and all the complicated implications/ramifications therein. Freedom to, and freedom from. Defending the individual, and/or the group.</ramble>
Humans are messy. I stick with ineffable inscrutable (unorganized) cats. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Quiddity. Most conflict is not about Good vs. Evil it is between two individuals who both believe that they are doing the right thing but they don't agree on what the right thing is. For example, I have strong negative feelings towards certain political views that I think are damaging and heartless. But I also believe that the individuals who hold those views really believe, in their heart of hearts, that their positions on issues will be the best for the country. Their sincerity isn't in doubt, I just think they are completely mistaken.
Resolution is not always possible. But it is a sign of maturity that one can disagree with another person without needing to prove to the other person how wrong they are. It's about digging deep and finding some element of common ground. Here, the common ground is that the majority of people editing want what's best for Wikipedia. But there are disagreements on a) what is best and b) how to go about achieving what's best.
Because Wikipedia is incredibly decentralized, Editors who disagree with each other can mostly both work peacefully as long as they are working in different areas of the encyclopedia. It reminds me of when I first started spending time in New York City...during the day, there are 8 million people at work there. Walking around, you cross paths with hundreds of people. With that kind of density and amount of human contact, there should more conflict than there actually is. But, for the most part, people walk around in bubbles and ignore most of what is going on around them. Someone accidentally bumps you or cuts in front or you and stops suddenly so you walk into them or steps ahead of you and grabs the cab that was coming towards you? You curse under your breath and move on. You can not survive in an urban environment if every act of other people becomes personalized. That is why people from less dense areas think folks living in cities are rude or insensitive...but the fact is that they have to live their lives tuning out most other people around them in order to decrease the amount of stress and being overly sensitive with all of this stimulation can literally drive one mad.
So, on Wikipedia, most Editors work independently but cross paths with many other Editors. Considering there are 4M+ articles, there is actually less conflict than one would imagine. A lot of that is due to the Five Pillars which help orient a new Editor to work within Wikipedia cultural environment. If there wasn't a principle of AGF, this would be a much less pleasant place to work. Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Well said. (But also: [2], [3], [4]) :) –Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL! These are all gems, Quiddity, especially the second one. Very appropriate for WP. I was a very casual Editor for years and it was only this year when I became active that I was aware some of my edits were reverted. I'm pretty open-minded but I remember the shock..."How could I be wrong? I know what I'm talking about!" WP can be very humbling....it's an exercise in detachment. Ommmmmmmm. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
AGF, how lovely to hear that mentioned again! Look for it (or the lack of it) here, quote "Did you know that you were the first to mention "AGF" on that page? (The only other time it said "AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst")." ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

IPCC report

It's out, and it brings the deniers out of the woodwork. Even though the "Climategaters" were cleared of any wrongdoing, they still cite it as evidence that climate change is a hoax. Serendipodous 06:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

talkpage stalker swoops in... since I'm busy defending telepathic plants elsewhere in the wikiverse (no... I only *wish* that weren't true :-) you and Liz will have to handle the global warming stuff without me. But I'll happily give you a nice WP:TLDR before you head off on your way.  :-)
pep talk ... in the form of an analysis of the types of folks that believe doing something about Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming, for one reason or another, must be bogus
    I will note that, having looked reasonably deeply into the arguments, there are three sorts of valid ones, that your broad brush escapes. I don't deny there *are* folks who believe, literally and truly, that Earth's climate has never, and will never, change. But that "type four" human is such a vanishingly small minority, they hardly matter... they just tend to be extremely vocal, to compensate for their extremely small slice of the overall population.
    The first type of ACGW-is-crapola citizen, believes that the "A" portion is wrong. They believe the link between human activity, and the measured climate, is incredibly overstated. Not a hoax, so much as, wishful thinking on the part of the pro-ACGW folks. Industrial production has continued to rise, and GHG outputs, but temp-charts do not mirror those changes... the patterns don't match.
    Type two folks think the "C" portion is wrong. Sure, greenland will be less icy. Ditto antarctica. Ditto the arctic ocean. But sea-level studies that include *pressure* indicate that the additional rise will be under ten feet for the vast majority of major cities on large continents. Folks in the Netherlands live that far under water, ditto Venice. So what's the big deal? Couple extra degrees, who cares. This is basically an argument that nature is tough, and that humans are tough, and that a bit warmer weather is like the difference between living in Atlanta, and living in Tallahassee... *not* like the difference between living in Miami, and living in Maine! This argument is particularly difficult to overcome, because in the 1990s global warming was predicted to sweep away 50% of coastal cities, kill 80% of species, and so on. Additionally, there will not be any user-visible catastrophe for decades... and techological fixes, which seem out of reach now in 2013, may not be in 2038.
    There is a third type of citizen, who disbelieves that "GW" portion. These folks are similar to type two, and remember the wild claims of the 1990s... but not only do type-three folks disbelieve there is a possibility of catastrophe, they disbelieve the whole shebang. They don't see IPCC *scientists* writing up reports about *research* ... they see IPCC *politicians* writing up propaganda about *bribes*. Grant-money is heavily politicized. Governments hand out the vast majority of science-cash. Scary human-caused catastrophic mumbo-jumbo, which only politicians can save us from, generates votes. Gore did not just pick that particular cause out of a hat. This is similar to the folks that believe intelligent design is pseudoscience, pointing out that the *funding* behind the 'science' of the entire creation science movement is from religions. All the ACGW funding is from politicians.
    Finally, there is a zeroth type of ACGW-is-crapola person. They believe that ACGW is science, They believe that complex interactions could result in catastrophe circa 2050 or 2075. They believe that human industrialization is the *primary* cause. But they still voted against Gore in 2000. And they still will vote against it in 2016. Because why? How can they believe, and yet not vote? The answer is, tradeoffs. Anybody that *really* believes in the predictions, that *really* looks at what humans would have to do to *halt* the temp-rise... understands that any one country is powerless. Voluntary compliance is worthless. The only way, if the IPCC is correct in their climate-modelling, to mitigate the possibility of catastrophic warming is to clamp down hard on GHG worldwide tomorrow.
    No more cars for China, India, Brazil. Coal-powered electric-generating-facilities in China and the USA, all turned off. Not in a few decades. *NOW*. That means, switching over to nuclear power for electricity, and for home-heating. That means, switching over to mass transport (or telecommuting) for 90% of the people. In turn, that means incredible economic disruption; no more oil industry, no more auto industry, no more coal industry. Nukes in every country, not just Iran, even *Palestine* will have their own nukes. Extreme governmental regulations, of the industrial economy, of the nuclear materials supply-chain, and so on; allies ganging up on any recalcitrant nation (diplomatically at first but quickly shifting to invasion) that dares mine for coal, drive personal automobiles, use incadescent lightbulbs, and so on.
    Is a political catastrophe, better than a climate catastrophe? Depends on which predictions you believe, right? If you believe the worst IPCC predictions... then the only way to avoid the climate catastrophe is World Totalitarian Domination... and is that 'winning' by any rational standard? But on the other hand, if you only believe the *least* bad IPCC predictions... then maybe suffering a small climate-catastrophe, is safer than risking a small governmental-catastrophe, since the latter could easily get out of hand... and end up with ICBMs locking in their launch-codes.
    Anyhoo, sorry about the wall of text. Don't seem to have any other type of comment in me.  :-/     But while you are out WikiJousting with the deniers (denyers? deny-iers? remind me to never speak of this again)... try and remember that folks often have reasons, and the screaming about ACGW-is-a-big-hoax is really only one citizen in ten million. But I personally know at least one real live citizen who falls into type-1/2/3/zero categories I summarized above, and they vote that way, too. Suspect per WP:OR these are not 'fringe' viewpoints on the political spectrum, either, except for *maybe* type three... but a *lot* of people firmly believe the government is corrupt nowadays, and even if the climategate charges were dropped with no wrongdoing (by whom? other climate scientists? deans of universities dependent on grantmoney? governments with COI issues? you just do not understand how deep the corruption reach-eth-ezzzz :-) ... even if one particular alleged scandal was supposedly fixed, that does not mean that people will suddenly trust the IPCC, or vote differently.
    Finally, of course, as with any politicized issue -- even telepathic plants are sensationalized in the mainstream media nowadays -- there is a lot of churnalism that muddies the waters. On that note, I wish you luck. Remember that the other side of the content-dispute is human. Assume good faith. Really really assume good faith, even when the other editor may not give you the same courtesy; retain the high moral ground, and stick to pillar four like a rock. My new favorite essay -- WP:IMAGINE. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
You are the pride and joy of Wikipedia! Without people like you Wikipedia would not move forward! Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Banaster Giver Extra Polite! It is very much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 12:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Try telling that to the ones that are about to block me in the near future. All I want to do is encourage wikipedians.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hard to believe someone can get banned for giving barnstars but the rules against socking are pretty absolute here. Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Banaster. I don't know you. <eyes narrow> But if you dare encourage wikipedians... <eyes spring open> you must begone!!11!! Sigh. Kidding! Please stay, if you can. You've studied the wikiJudiciary, Liz. Why is socking, all by itself, just the *fact* of having account X, account Y, without being super-careful to have both userpages say "my name is X and also Y" and *extra* careful to nevah-evah "log in" as an IP ... why is the mere holding of two accounts insta-ban? I've not looked into Banaster's difficulty, but there seems to be a presumption-of-guilt mindset. WP:AGF?
some additional bleating concerning the actual abuse versus the potential for abuse, with poignant reference to the ongoing httpArchiveDotIs bot-n-sock-banfest.
If you have an account X, and you edit with it during 2009, and you have an account Y, and you edit with it during 2010, on a completely different set of articles, where is the problem? There are two major *actions* that constitute abusive use of multiple accounts: one, using them to !vote at RfA/AfD/AfC, and two which I would consider worse, using them to create faux-consensus in content disputes.
    But in practice, there is no need to actually *abuse* account X and account Y to "win" some WP:POLL or some WP:BATTLEGROUND ... simply having not-very-explicitly-linked-together X and Y simultaneously, is grounds for prima facie perma-ban. Seems like there has to be something more to it; WMF is in Florida, so I'm assuming they have to submit all server-logs to the Feds, just like google/msft/yahoo/etc, per know-your-customer-laws. Maybe that explains the absolutist stance? But if so... is that written down as the reason, anywheres? I've never seen such a rationale.
    The archive.is nuttiness from Sept/Oct is reminiscent; the owner of archive.is wrote a bot, which runs in a separate uid, and fixes deadlinks. Their website competes with archive.org and some other places, but their bot was not just a linkspammer for their own website, it used other places too. Because the bot was 'unauthorized' by the WMF-approved admins, they banned the bot... and per WP:IAR presumably (the owner of the bot has stopped bothering to communicate with any wikipedia insiders) the bot is still running, from dynamic IPs, which is 'technically' a case of socking. Everybody agrees the bot is good; it's just a who-is-in-control political football. Anyways, the end result was to ban the archive.is website from wikipedia, and delete the 5k fixes the bot make during the last month, *plus* revert the 10k links to archive.is which *human* editors have added in the past year, so that archive.is can be spam-blacklisted.
    Which is nothing if not a scorched-earth policy. And the *only* charge is socking; the bot does not !vote, obviously, and does not attempt to sway consensus on talkpages. It just tests if a link is dead, and if so, replaces it with one to archive.is / webcitation.org / etc, so that the link will be live again. You can argue this is socking to avoid a ban... which is true... but the ban was not for disruptive editing, the ban is for daring to improve wikipedia without permission from the admins, from what I gather.
"The encyclopedia anybody can edit unless you use two pseudonyms without getting permission first" ...must be the extra bit Jimbo just plain forgot to spell out? I've only heard about this yesterday, so I'm hoping I'll turn out to be mistaken in my narrative here somewhere, but from what I know so far this looks really BadNews to my eyes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User edits

I found this chart interesting:

Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

((for the curious like myself... this is enWiki only... wonder if they have a chart for deWiki and jpWiki and frWiki and ruWiki?)) The slow decline in article-growth that eventually stabilizes is not very shocking; once you get a million articles, you have covered the *most* notable topics, even if not *every* notable topic. The decline in article-talk *is* very scary; once the articles are largely done, there should be increased article-talk, discussing the best way to word things, how to integrate that summer-2013 research without violating WP:UNDUE, and so on. Instead, around 2008 we see the article-talkpage-bytes hit a bottleneck and dwindle slightly thereafter. The constant churn (steady level of bytes being added -- year after year after year) in both the userpage-space and especially the wikipedia-policy-page-space is what most terrifies me. Like the IRS, no regulations are ever repealed... there are just new ones, and more new ones, that gradually bury the old. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
So, 74.192.84.101, what would you like to see happen instead? Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Half of that is probably my talk page. Terrible how some people abuse this joint like it was a social network. Wikipedia is a bit of a victim of its own success, of course, attracting a lot of vandals and a lot of "editors" who actually don't have much to edit but a lot to lawyer. But there are lots of other things going on as well, individual little things that maybe don't explain much but are interesting nonetheless. For instance, many of the earlier articles are built on free material like the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Brittanica. Once those wells have run dry it becomes harder to quickly generate more content. And isn't it inevitable that our best content contributors become administrators, and even though they may be brilliant admins don't write as much content anymore? Not that I would speak from personal experience of course. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
So true, Drmies. Maybe there is less article creation and more "polishing" what's already here, improving the quality of the articles. By the way, I've been looking at random articles of Editors when I see them list on their User Page hundreds of articles they have created and, to be honest, some are pretty modest. Since my own article creation is nil, maybe I should find a previously unheard of genus of beetle and just go stub wild! Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That chart is somewhat misleading for the conclusions you're drawing from it as it deals in bytes added. When I first started editing, users were welcomed with a pretty simple message. Now you've got some pretty fancy welcome and Teahouse templates along with more Project newsletters and bot "fix your screwup" messages all adding to the byte count. --NeilN talk to me 02:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention that archives are usually still stored in User talkspace, so that makes things in user talk space count double. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Both good points, NeilN and Writ Keeper ⚇. I know when I've come across some Editors who have 100+ subpages (it was closer to 200) and those would all be counted as User Pages, not article content. It's actually puzzling to me how some Editors have random subpages MfD (and not for copyright violations) while other Editors have hundreds, most of them dating from years ago.
As for being misleading, well any time you try to capture reality with numbers, you fail to capture the complexity of life. Can you tell I was a qualitative researcher, not a quantitative one? I don't confuse any presentation of data as "fact", I just look for trends, biases, and even a bad chart can prompt a good discussion (even if it is about its inaccuracy). I'm basically pro-analysis, that's my goal. Thanks for sharing some considerations I hadn't thought of. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
What would I like to see happen instead... do you not fear to invite such a wall-of-text? Okay, okay, I'll try to let you off easy. This time. Plus, you may already be getting an idea of that, from my complaining elsewheres.  :-)   But while I could give you a truly massive wall-of-text here, I do have a specific thing I would like to see happen, specifically talking about the chart.
a small wall of text. 2014+ chart ought to look like this: 40% article, 40% articleTalkpage+newForumPagesFeature, 15% usertalk, 3% userpage, 2% wikitalk, 1% wikipolicy.
   First, I would like to see article-space stay where it is, around 50%. This is enWiki-specific, remember; we have covered most major topics, and while there will be new Notable topics from time to time, and new WP:NOTEWORTHY stuff to add into existing articles, plus polishing/clarifying/chartifying/etc of articles as time goes by... I don't except we'll ever again see 80% of bytes devoted to article-creation. 40% sure, but not 80%.
   Next, I would like to see a strict byte-limit on userpages. If you want more than one kilobyte you have to donate $5/year to WMF (raw wiki markup count... transclude of the barnstar-display-bot-feature onto your personal page costs you 30 bytes for the wiki-markup-itself, not 10 kilobytes for the *rendered* output of raw HTML that users see).
   Similarly, I would like to see freemium forums, based on wordpress rather than talkpage-markup-syntax, for every article. You can gab with your buds, and argue back-n-forth endlessly, about climate change, morphic resonance, cold fusion, presidential elections, mozart infoboxen, and so on... over at Forum:Climate Change and Forum:Mozart. Anybody can post up to one kilobyte per day in the forums, with posts linked to their always-hidden email-address in the usual wordpress style, but if they exceed 1KB, they have to donate *another* $5/year to WMF. These changes should result in a dramatic drop in the userpage churn on the chart (most people will not *pay* to honk their own horns beyond a brief one-kilobyte hi-this-is-me biography). There would also be a dramatic drop in the User:Talk, which would shift into the public Forum category. (I expect that new forum-category on the byte-chart would quickly grow humonguous... but the freemium model means it would easily pay for itself and then some... plus attract people to wikipedia to *argue* their cause in the forums... which in many cases would translate to learning to edit article-talkpages, and then learning to edit mainspace, methinks.)
   But these are just some random Good Ideas(tm). My personal crusade to WP:RGW is aimed clearly and directly at the pale-pea-green part of the chart, dubbed "policy growth" by whoever created the analysis, may they live a thousand years. There was a huge growth in policy, followed by the not-unexpected stabilization of the article-growth... but an *extremely* worrying decline -- still ongoing -- in article talkpage growth. People no longer have civil banter on the talkpages. They just war in mainspace, and plot their next move with their clique on the user-talkpages and the wikiprojects, and if *forced* to use the article-talkpage, treat it as a continuation of mainspace-warring by different means. Liz and I are no exception, methinks... I'm mostly here to get her to join my WP:NICE not-a-cabal, so I can get wikiCulture changed.
   But my real complaint is not the historical 'policy growth' portion, where a bunch of the WP:PG that Liz is reading about from 2005 and 2007 were first hammered out. That was necessary, unavoidable, and prolly a good thing overall. My target is different: the *continued* strong growth of policy-pages, in 2009 and 2010 (and 2011 and 2012 and 2013). We now suffer under five bazillion policy pages, which drives away new editors. Actual quote, from an actual first-time editor, noteworthy career as a hollywood teamster/setmaster, author of two real-life books, who just landed a deal to get six more books published, and could *not* get their biography through AfC: "I am forever done with submitting anything to your site. It is confusing and seems to be designed to discourage anyone from submitting anything. The only thing close to this is filling out a tax form."
   The WP:PG pages really *are* like the IRS. Worse, in fact: they are like the IRS going after political groups the IRS bosses dislike. There are unwritten rules, including a caste-system, which *actually* governs how mainspace is edited, and how talkpages are run. The five pillars are entirely rubberized. When you search for AGF in the classical music wikiproject, you get just four damn hits... and three of the four are specifically saying not to assume good faith in whatever whatever, because blah blah blah. (The fourth one is from 2013, wondering why nobody seems to AGF anymore. Define irony.) You cannot read a damn policy-page without it mentioning AGF and pillar four and WP:NICE and WP:CIVIL ten times before breakfast, but pillar four *in the wild* is made of rubber, or vapor. WP:NINJA.
   TLDR, the *main* thing I want to see changed with this chart is that slow steady poisonous trickle of policy-churn, the pale-pea-green stuff that is *bigger* than userpage changes, and *bigger* than articleTalkpage changes. Policy-churn is the third most important category of effort put into wikipedia, after articles in mainspace, and user-talkpages where people gripe about how many rules there are, or complain how we need to make more rules, or whatever. I want policy-churn to dwindle to almost zero. I want to put forth the editor's bill of rights, and put admins in charge that will enforce those dispassionately (and preferably anonymously... no more caste-system and no more aristocracy of pull). After that, I want the 'new' norms... which are for the most part the same as the old pre-2005 norms methinks... set in some kind of wikiConstitutional stone, not to be overturned except by the annual wikiConstitutional convention vote, involving one hundred delegates which are PRNG-selected (no weighting by edit-count) from the pool of active-editors-contributing-at-least-five-edits-per-month. In short, I want my WP:PONY, and I'm gonna turn blue if I don't get it.  :-)    74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Jewish-Christian gospel articles

Hi Liz. I think you have been doing some work recently on categories, and I was wondering if you could organize the categories on the Jewish-Christian gospel articles or recommend which categories to include. There is currently no systematic structure to the categories across articles, but there should be a common core of categories. The articles in this group include Jewish-Christian gospels, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and Gospel of the Hebrews. Grazie! (practicing my Italian) :0) Ignocrates (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back from your WikiBreak, Ignocrates! Sure, I'll take this on. I need to study the articles to see where, within the taxonomy of early Christianity/Judaism, they fit. Despite my "uninvolved involvement", I was actually more involved in the dynamics of the Talk Page discussion than in the articles themselves. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Liz. I have been thinking about how to improve these articles as a sub-category so there is some consistency to them in terms of organization and formatting. Ignocrates (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

thesis

You asked to see my BA thesis about Wikipedia. I uploaded it here and posted a link and explanation on my userpage. As I explain on my userpage, I personally think it could have been much better if I had worked on it more. Nonetheless, I hope you find my insights somewhat useful.

I checked your userpage and saw that you've published in academic journals. I'm impressed! I personally found it difficult to find the motivation to write my thesis, so I admire anyone who has the discipline to write dissertations and academic articles. :) Best, Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Edge3! I appreciate your willingness to share it with me. As for thesis/dissertations, I remember exhausting my adviser with even more revisions and she told me, "Liz, you could spend the rest of your life, polishing this to perfection. It's time to turn it in." We could always do a better job!
I should say that I have only submitted to journals and edited collections where I received an invitation to submit. I never went the route of knocking on a lot of doors and waiting months to hear back that I need to revise and resubmit. So, I have fewer publications but less frustration and rejection. I should really do more serious work on Wikipedia but at this point, I'm really just happier, doing Wikignome activities than hunting down references and trying to summarize complex sociological concepts in four or five paragraphs. They've done an impressive job of this in the physical sciences here.
Thanks again, Edge3! Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Hello, I wanted to know why the page Arie Belldegrun is proposed for deletion? The article is about a prominent professor and doctor, the information in the article is verifiable and reliable, and it is written from a neutral point of view. Please let me know what needs to be done in order to improve the article. Thanks, Ubron (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ubron the notices tell you everything you need to know. The article's worst flaw is that it reads like a resume...it's just a list of jobs and positions he has held, without any indication of why he was notable.
So he was Doctor of X at Hospital Y, what is the significance of this? Did he accomplish something important, more than another person in a similar position? Or was he just the next person to get hired for the job? Unless it is a person of prominence (like royalty or politicians), we don't have Wikipedia articles on everyone that holds an important job. For example, not every CEO, not every published professor, not every mayor, not every award winner, has a Wikipedia article written about them. He can't just be good at his job, he has to be exceptional, he has to be notable which typically means he is written about by newspapers, by journals (and not from his workplace).
That's the bad news. The good news is that you can remove the deletion tag. It says:

"If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page."

Additionally, get rid of all of the red links, they look really bad. You shouldn't create links to articles that don't exist unless you are planning an article about those subjects. Otherwise, they are just distracting and unsightly.
It sounds like you are going to put some work into this article, which is great. That's what the tag is for, to draw Editors' attention to an article that needs some improvement. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. I have made some changes to the article, and will continue to work on it in the future. Hopefully it is somewhat improved now. Ubron (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Staff list

Liz—bottom of newsroom page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom. Tony (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TONY! Any chance of making it more prominent? Or did I just miss what was right in front of my face? No, don't answer that. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Another random observation

As I go back into the WP archives, I can't help but notice that a fairly high percentage (I'd guess 10%) of the most active Editors (commenting in AN, AN/I and at ARBCOM cases, running for position on ARBCOM, being high profile with FAs, etc.) in years past (2006-2010) are later desysoped and/or end up blocked. The biggest irony I saw was one vocal supporter for an Admin who blocked sock puppets and got in trouble, later got him/herself blocked for being part of a group of socks.

Is it just the swing of the pendulum that causes a few folks to veer from being the most devoted and committed Editors to ones who violate basic principles and end up getting the boot? But I bet even if you interviewed them, they probably couldn't pinpoint the moment when their attitude changed from "Defender of the Wiki" to "FU, I make my own rules". Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably the role of being on ArbCom is itself such a tiring role emotionally, mentally and from a time-commitment perspective that it can cause attrition for even the most devoted editors. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, CorporateM, there was only one person who imploded who had been an arbitrator, it was mostly super-active admins who seem to either let the power go to their head and take WP too seriously, or, simply, they crashed and burned. One thing I'm coming across from records around 2005-2007 is that there were lots of complaints from the Admins under question that WP had too many rules and structure, they seem to value WP:IAR much more highly than people do now. Some appeared unfamiliar with or completely disregard what are now basic policies and guidelines and there were a lot of issues with incivility (more than I expected). It gives the picture of the early years of WP being much more free-flowing, "make it up as you go along", admins had a lot more latitude, and there was a lot of controversy over "secret" cabals, especially focused on IRC channels and mailing lists (something that doesn't seem to be an issue today).
Today's WP, on the other hand, is much more bureaucratic. But the thing about rules and structure is that when someone with power does violate the rules, it's easier to point to diffs that explain what the problem is rather than relying on people's general impression (or good feelings) about the editor/admin. Rules do confine action but they also can protect users from abuse. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yah, I've heard that RE structure and rules. I've found every admin I've encountered to be pretty competent. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It's humbling to read messages on the old email list and see people arguing about policies that now seem "the norm". I forget that Wikipedia had to figure out what it was going to be, all on its own. There were lots of bumps along the way. I can also see how Editors and Admins from 2005 would not be comfortable in Wikipedia as it exists today. I didn't understand that before. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We are *still* in the early days. Our current norms are Wrongo. Active-editor-counts are steadily declining. BadGuy promotionalism -- you excluded YippieKiYayCorpM o'course -- is rising. We need to return to our roots, when adminship was no big deal, and WP:IAR was *the* rule -- why don't I just quote -- if any rule keeps you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Either that, or we need to form a wikiGovt with widespread elections, turn arbcom into a supreme court, turn Jimbo into an elected president, and turn the wikiProjects into the "states of the federation" that elects wiki-senators and such.
    Actually, in the long run, I expect we'll do both. (Liz and I *drastically* disagree that the rules prevent abuse... the rules *encourage* abuse and petty tyrannies and our caste-system... wikipedia needs a bill of editor rights, including pillar three and pillar four and pillar one and a couple others... then some 'constitutional wikiCops' that enforce those few rules equally across the wikiverse.) But in the short run, either we get back pillar five, and de-rubberize pillar four, or wikipedia is gonna get corrupted real quick; bought out by google seems the most likely scenario. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No offense, 74.192.84.101, I admire your enthusiasm. But you are talking about ambitious, massive, wide-scale cultural changes. Not even Jimmy Wales can initiate the kind of changes you are proposing. I think you have to narrowly define your goals and work to find Editors who support them. Your talk page comments alert other Editors that you have big plans and vision but they don't help actually accomplish a cultural change. You try to change everything and you'll end up just frustrated. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Still; the culture is indeed a bit on the poisonous side. People who argue about excess pages and detailed coverage of works only to lament the lack of more "notable" figures form 400-500 years ago. The goal of condensing and distributing the sum knowledge of all mankind should be the ultimate aim of the encyclopedia. As it stands; the entire world were to go into a new dark age, the Wikipedias would survive and likely become the source of the most knowledge. After all, a massive block of data on all subjects from around the world on a single thumb drive is perhaps the most terrifying and wondrous thing about Wikipedia. We have to take care and become stewards of knowledge - great librarians and scholars in a modern day Library of Alexandra. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ChrisGualtieri, such idealism! You know, I've been reading old ARBCOM cases from 2005-2007 and, believe it or not, things were kind of brutal back then, too. There was a lot more WP:IAR than there is today. People complained about silly rules like WP:CIVIL. What is really striking is that Wikipedia is still evolving and changing into what it's going to be. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Idealism is also the source of much if not most conflict on Wikipedia. But thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
(I'm with Chris... wikipedia is not a bad manual for rebuilding civilization from... though a thumbdrive is *not* a good storage choice -- how would you read the data? But besides embodying the modern version of Alexandria, methinks wikipedia has a role to play in *preventing* various forms of catastrophic civilization collapse scenarios... fore-warned is fore-armed, sure, but with real luck, we'll create fore-sight!) You can call me 74, Liz, easier to type; think of it as my jersey-number, if you like.
    And yes, you are correct about the scale of change I'm speaking of. You are also correct that even The One True Founder Jimbo, were he to be so foolish, could not set such changes in motion. But you are incorrect, in assuming that drastic change is not *already* in motion.[5] Neither I nor Jimbo could have started it, but it seems pretty clear that nobody can stop it, either. There are hundreds of millions of uniques that visit wikipedia every month. That will grow to a *billion* people visiting every month. You think the paid-editor pressure is bad now, wait until wikipedia is in the top three. Editors-retention has been failing for years now. WMF tried to stop it, could not.[6] But this cannot continue.
    We will cross a point, and soon, where the number of active editors is simply too few to handle the increasing number of readers. At that point, either a bottom-up revolution will happen, with a return to WP:IAR, or perhaps a constitutional wiki-government... or wikipedia will cease to be independent, and will take the money from google or from the PR firms, to survive... at which point I will give up. Obviously, I'd rather see a bottom-up revolution, than see WMF sell out. But it is a real risk, in the next five or ten years. Your study of noticeboard evils, and my anecdotal studies of editor interactions plus wiki-tools, both say the same thing: we are in big trouble *now*, let alone five years from now.
    As for myself, just like you, until 2013 there was little interest for me outside editing mainspace. I don't think we're alone, either. I think a lot of people are getting concerned. My focus if very simple: I want to make the error-messages nicer, and I want to improve some bohts to be nicer.[7] I want to help automate the AfC queue.[8] And I want to get some kind of wiki-fun-teaming-system up and running.(WP:RETENTION) Plus, write a one-page survival manual, ditto. If I manage to do three of those four things, I expect to see editor-retention reverse the downward trend, and start back upwards. If we can get a GOOD visual editor, and a twitter-like edit-summary interface, and a wordpress-like talkpage interface, and a facebook-like userpage interface, on top of those earlier goals... well, wikipedia will have over a million active editors five years from now, and all our *other* problems of today will be solved, by having plenty of hands to do the work. WP:RETENTION is a pretty darn good silver bullet.
    Anyways, since you insist on focus, which I heartily approve of... can I interest you in a draft copy of the survival manual? You can point out flaws, and help flesh out the missing portions. Or not, no pressure. I still like you, even if you won't join my not-a-cabal just yet.  :-)    74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't insist on focus (or on anything!), it was just advice, @74. Sure, I'll check out the survival manual...is it on one of your user pages? Liz Read! Talk! 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The survival manual is hyperlinked, little bits here and there on talkpages. Like you should be surprised by that. Anyways, awesome. I will collect the tidbits, and put them together into a new section on my talkpage, and then alert you when it is "ready" for some serious fixing. Please be brutal with your cuts. Someone once claimed I had a verbosity problem. The nerve!  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia research

Some, certainly. Have you seen WP:ACST? A good place to ask questions is wiki-research-l. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here! I didn't know about WP:ACST but I am subscribed to Research-l although I don't read every message. I saw you got your degree in sociology, that was my field in graduate school. In fact, it looks like we have some similar interests. I look forward to keeping in touch with you! Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Are you a wiki researcher as well, or just interested in this area? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Better watch yourself there, Proconsul. Liz is the wisest fairest WP:WikiPrincess ever to grace the wikiverse, and if you value your... oh... sorry Liz, right. Nevermind my blather Proconsul. Liz will be dealing with you, in good time, personally.  ;-)   p.s. Our legal department forces me to say that no wikiPrincesses were harmed in the making of this humour, and all genders including asexuality are equally valid and valued as constructive editors, except when local statutes say otherwise, please file all questions and complaints with the one true founder User:Jimbo_Wales thank you good day. —74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, Quiddity (WMF), for keeping me in the loop. I have some questions about the way the survey is worded but I really have to do more reading on Flow and see what problem it is trying to solve in user experience. I really appreciate how open you are to feedback. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou!

Thanks for stopping by my talk page and bringing me on to the WikiProject! I think I might have found something I might be good at! :) to reply or further the conversation, press three Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 16:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied to you on your talk page. Glad I could help! Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for indicating your support on meta for Wikimedia New York City. We meet regularly as noted at WP:meetup/New York City. Have you and I already met? I fail to recognize who you are even as I know I have seen your username. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Blue Rasberry ! I came to one gathering, I believe it was at a college campus in 2009 or 2010 (I think it was Wikipedia Day 2010) but I haven't been to anything recent. I was going to try to go to a meetup at the library in October but family life intervened. But I've been on the email list for a long time. My previous username was Nwjerseyliz. Because I'm coming from NJ, I'm more likely to come to an gathering in Manhattan than Brooklyn or Queens.
Hope to catch up with you one day! Thanks for the coffee! Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at User talk:AutomaticStrikeout/RfA History.
Message added 17:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for October 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Please comment on Talk:Peter Sellers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Sellers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2013



Headlines

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

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For cleaning up the recent Galicia mess, the Tireless Contributor Barnstar seems quite appropriate. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here, I am touched. Truly!

Honestly, I don't know if I would have worked so hard if I'd known how many hours it would take! But, before I bothered to look at her Contributions list and saw how large the number of edits was, it was just one glitch leading to another, I got on a roll and, next thing I knew, it was the afternoon. At least this mess was very narrowly defined...I'm just glad she took on this one small geographical area and not the entire country of the Ukraine. Thanks again for spotting it so soon. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Liz,

I'm sorry I haven't been more attentive to Wikipedia, and I did want to drop you a note to say thank you so much for your thoughts. You have a great mind and view of Wikipedia and life, and I very much appreciate all you do. I'm not sure why or how you found me, but I am very glad you did - and I greatly admire your thoughts.

I'm sorry I didn't get this to you sooner, and I wish you would have known me back in the day when I was actually a positive of Wikipedia. This is a wonderful project, and I urge you to ignore my negative comments.

Thank you so much for talking to me -

Ched

— ChedZILLA 11:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Ched, that is the nicest note, thanks so much. I'm sorry that your feelings on WP soured but, now that I'm more active, I can see how easily this can happen. The more time, energy, care and attention one invests in a project, the more it matters.
And so, when the process fails to be just or is seen to be hypocritical, it hurts the people who are more active users the most. And since Arbitrators, Admins and Editors are only human, that means that the mistakes and missteps are fairly predictable...but, hopefully, the checks and balances in the system will lessen their probability and severity.
It is extra difficult when this happens with non-profits because one does work here not just for the sense of gratification or pursuit of ones goals, but because one believes in the idea or cause of free information. It's more disappointing when these organizations are unfair because when these things happen at a for-profit company, it's just business as usual. People are willing to donate their time and intelligence freely because it's for a greater good.
So, I'm of a mind that it's more amazing that people still continue to edit and contribute in spite of the semi-regular screw-ups. Wikipedia is a success, despite itself, despite all of the ways that it fails to deliver, that it fails to meet the high ideals it was founded on.
I only know a little bit about your circumstances, Ched, but it seems like you've found a way to participate without going the full immersion route than Adminship often entails. I think it's great that you've found a way to contribute in a way that is still enjoyable to you and it's not a complete break-up (so to speak). Better that WP becomes a small source of pleasure and fun than a total lifestyle. I still have to learn that lesson myself, hopefully not the hard way!
Thanks again for the kind words! Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

of XX descent

I've noticed a blossoming of the 'of xx descent' categories reaching sometimes to the absurd. Do you know if there is a consensus on when and how such cats should be created? I found one person whose great grandmother was a Sephardic Jew, so they ended up as a 'of Jewish descent' somewhere. This seems a bit exaggerated to me. Should we have 'jamaicans of Croatian-Jewish' descent? Or just 'of Croatian descent' + 'of Jewish descent' - and only look at the parents - once you start looking at grandparents and great grandparents it becomes ridiculous.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts.
A) A lot of these descent categories are the work of one Editor. I'm trying to delete extraneous categories, avoid having parent categories cross-parent other categories (it happens a fair amount of the time) as most Editors don't understand that except for in non-diffusing categories, an article doesn't have to be categorized under both parent and child categories.
B) We had a couple of dust-ups on Sunday-Monday. One was the Galicia fiasco where all categorical (and article) references were changed from Eastern Europe to Central Europe. This involved hours to undo, revert and repair. But the second was the discovery that some Editors were tagging every category involving people with Jewish descent with being "of Asian descent". It got to the point where someone who was an Icelandic or Mexican person with Jewish ancestry was also marked as being of Asian descent. So, I went to WP:WikiProject Judaism where I know I'd find people who had opinions and they said to remove Asian descent links (although I kept them for Jews who are from the Middle East which, I now know, is considered "Southwest Asia").
C) Finally, psychologically, I don't know if it happens to you but when you're on a roll and you are organizing disorderly categories (and it takes a few hours), you can get to the point where you want every stray article that is related the main topic to be categorized. This results in the profusion of categories that might just contain one or two articles just so that the main categories only consists of subcategories and no articles. I understand this impulse but it's important to resist it or you end with Mexicans of Jewish descent who are Asian. I have learned, since I first started working in CfD that WP is not "neat", that not everything has to fit and put in the "right" place. 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I just realized, Obi-Wan Kenobi, that I really didn't answer your question. I've been working with Jewish categories today so that's what I'm most familiar with right now. The guideline is that if an individual self-identifies as being Jewish (and it says so in their WP article), they are classified under Category:American Jews. But if their parents or grandparents were Jewish and there is no indication that they identify themselves as being Jewish, they are categorized as Category:American people of Jewish descent. Considering the rate of intermarriage, the descent category is probably larger than the self-identified category. So far, I've found reasonable levels of categorization down to two levels (like Americans with Iraqi-Jewish descent). That doesn't seem excessive to me.
The messiness lies in Editors with a certain POV who likes to tag anyone with a specific ancestry and who want to "claim" and categorize individuals who are only marginally connected to their ethnic heritage. The good and bad news is that it happens across the board, with pretty much every nationality (and WP considers ethnicity to be nationality in most cases). So, it's impossible to isolate any one group that is being disruptive in this way. Every nationality wants credit for people with notable accomplishments.
The only guidelines that I know of is WP:EGRS but I found it very effective to go to WikiProject Judaism and get their consensus which happened in just about 3 hours. Then I could eliminate all Asian references to all categories associated with Jews or Judaism.
Finally, sorry this is so long, but it really helps to take the full view of the larger categories, in one sitting, to get a sense for the taxonomy, how the parent categories and subcategories are organized rather than debate one category at a time (unless you use one category as a "case study" to use in lieu of dozens of similar categories). Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Druids (Shannara)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Druids (Shannara). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Latin American / South American / Arabic / African

Hi! I just saw that you placed an Arabic descent with African descent. You might want to treat that in a similar way as Jewish and Asian, or add the other intersections. Arabic people originate from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It's an ethnic group not associated with a single continent.... Just a thought. ____ E L A Q U E A T E 21:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, ____ E L A Q U E A T E. But I'm not inventing these categorizations, I'm working with the system that already exists. On Wikipedia, people from Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan and Somalia are classified as being both Arab and African.
I don't agree with this at all but this is the classification that currently exists and while I would like for it to change, I don't care enough about the issue to try and debate it on several WikiProjects that would be involved in making these changes to ethnic categorizations.
It can be frustrating. Today, I was working with a continental breakdown of peoples and for this subject, there is a people from Latin America category and a people from South American category. At CfD, I suggested that the two categories be merged but I was told that they refer to two different things (the former, a shared Hispanic culture; the latter, pure geography) so, for example, Venezuela and Ecuador need to be in both a Latin American category and a South American category that both exist in the parent category while Mexico and Cuba are in a Latin American category and a North American category. It's tricky.
Then, on the weekend, there was a debate about whether individuals who are Jewish should be designated to be of Asian descent because thousands of years ago, Judaism originated in the Middle East. This was the status quo on Wikipedia until I went to WikiProject Judaism and there was a discussion and now that connection is being removed except in cases where the individual/group is from the Middle East or the Asian continent (so not for European or American Jews). That change happened relatively quickly.
And then we have categories like Black Canadians which is a catch-all for Canadians from the West Indies, Africa and America. It sticks out like a sore thumb and I'd love for it to be broken down into distinct categories based on different ethnicities but it's an existing category and if this is the terminology that is used in Canada, we can't make an abstract categorization system take priority over the reality that exists.
It's a contentious area which is why WP has WP:EGRS guidelines because identification based on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation is so sensitive. Thanks for noticing this and calling it to my attention. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Jews, Asian descent

Every single "Jewish descent" category on Wikipedia lists Jews as being of Asian descent. We are talking thousands and thousands of categories. Are you going to remove them all? This should probably be discussed first.

What are you doing? Arabs and Jews are of West Asian descent. The Romani are of South Asian descent. You removing the categories is going against the established pattern of categorization. You also inexplicably removed an "Arab descent" parent category from an "Palestinian descent" category. This also goes against established categorization. Palestinians are Arabs. Solar-Wind (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you have classified most of these "of Jewish descent" categories as being "of Asian descent" back in August, Solar-Wind so I'm not sure that "thousands and thousands" is accurate. Please post a diff for where this "established categorization" was determined. Thanks.
But you are right, we need to gauge consensus. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin for the post asking for community comment. Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I will go along with whatever the decision is. On a related note, why remove the Asian descent categories from Arab and Romani categories? Both originate in Asia and both Arabs and Romani still reside in Asia. Solar-Wind (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I can see why you decided to remove "Americans of Asian descent" from the "American Ashkenazi Jews" cat, but removing "Middle Eastern people" and whatnot from the main "Ashkenazi Jews" category is just....well, wrong. Ashkenazi Jews did arrive to Europe from Asia/the Middle East. It's equally absurd when Sephardi Jews and Roma have not been removed. Also, not all Arab people are Asian, as many come from North Africa.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz would you be willing to act as an informal mediator in a dispute I am having?

Hi, hope all's well with you. I thought your comments on the John Carter / Ignocrates arbcom case were all very fair and I remember you said you want to help with mediation so I thought I would ask you if you would be willing to look at a dispute I have been involved in the last couple of days. I have irritated quite a few people, my idea is that I could ask one of them to present their "case", I present mine, you could have a look and then tell me if you think I should drop it or not. I don't expect you to rule on the right or wrong of the content, or the other people to be bound by what you say, but I will commit myself to abide by what you say, not in terms of changing my opinion on the subject matter, but whether or not I should continue with the sort of edits I have been making. Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Smeat75, that's awfully flattering for you to say. It was suggested that I might be a good fit to work with dispute resolution here on Wikipedia but I have no training and perhaps you'd like to go to WP:DRN or WP:THIRD and work with an editor more experienced in resolving disputes.
I don't mean to brush you off though so if this disagreement is occurring on an article talk page, I'd be happy to read it over and offer an impartial view. I'd just be speaking as an uninvolved editor though, not as a mediator. I don't want to claim to have more authority than I have.
Thanks for thinking of me, let me know if I can help! Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I trust you more than some random person I don't know anything about and have no idea whether they are fair or not. Maybe the word "mediator" is not the right one, I am asking you for your advice, really. This is a content dispute that has occurred over a number of pages, I would not expect you to go to the trouble of reading them all, there is one specific issue I would appreciate your opinion on, my idea is that I ask a representative of the "other side" to present a brief summary of their view for you, I present mine, and if you tell me "you are out of line, I think you should drop this" then I will, if you say "the points you are making are valuable" then I will continue. Does that sound OK? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you are simply asking me to weigh in with my opinion, that I can do. But I'd prefer it if these arguments were summarized on an article Talk Page and not my own TP. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it OK to use my talk page?Smeat75 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If it's okay with the other party, I think that would be fine. Maybe you should create a dedicated subpage for it, in case the discussion goes a little long. Then you can preserve the conversation and not have it be interrupted by other talk page messages and you don't have to worry about it being archived. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, when you have a minute can you look at the "Royalty dispute" section of my talk page [9]. It's not too long, about five paragraphs. I would be grateful for your opinion, not as to the rights or wrongs as to the content of the dispute, but whether I am acting like a jerk. Thanks a lotSmeat75 (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Done, Smeat75. I didn't have much to say about royalty, most of my comments were the way you were going about your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Liz, comments on my editing were exactly what I wanted your opinion on, I appreciate you ploughing through five paragraphs full of all that arcane jargon for me. Your comments about how I should drop the anger you could discern, edit dispassionately and not vent, try to win allies by persuasion, were particularly helpful. I don't remember how I came across these articles just a few days ago, I did not go looking for them, somehow I just happened upon an article about a great-grandson or something of the last German Emperor that used all these "Your Royal Highness" things and said he was a prince and listed all his "styles and titles" exactly as though all of that had not been abolished in 1919, which it was. I couldn't believe it and found to my horror that there are hundreds, or thousands, of such articles on WP. It just all seemed so utterly ridiculous to me, I asked for advice, one editor I trust agreed with me that the article should be altered, I tried to do it and found immediate opposition from a lot of people who will argue your head off about the Almanach de Gotha and such arcana from here till next century. I started to wonder if I should just drop it but I have found a couple of allies, so I think I am going to open an RfC on this matter and remember your sage advice. I knew you were the right person to ask, thanks again for ploughing through five paragraphs of all that esoteric gobbledegook, good luck with your own dispute and Happy Editing!Smeat75 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75, I didn't mention my previous encounters with these royal titles. At WP:CfD, there are regular nominations for deletion of special national awards and honors which are frequently bestowed to royalty. While not many editors have responded to defend these category deletions, the fact that some folks organized dozens (hundreds?) of these categories, assigned them to each biography article, shows that this is the work, over time, of more than one editor.

You might visit CfD and voice your opinion when these categories are nominated but if you choose to nominate any for discussion, please do so in small doses unless the categories are closely related. It's easier for editors to debate the merits of one category that to consider deleting 20 categories all at once and editors are more likely to vote Keep when it looks like the nominator is wiping the slate clean of a whole group of categories (unless they are closely related like "X honors of 1896", "X honors of 1900", "X honors of 1904", etc.). Liz Read! Talk! 12:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

Hi Liz. Not sure which side of the pond you're on! Anyway, in the UK, a "prefect" is most commonly a 17-year-old (approximately) school pupil with (nowadays) strictly limited part-time and unpaid powers in managing and disciplining younger pupils in the same school. One might therefore imagine that the user in question could be such a person who happens to be taking GCSE Law studies alongside their A-levels. Or something like that. This would both explain their rather bombastic and aggressive attitude, and also reassure us that they are not claiming to be a lawyer.

(The block is still 100% sound regardless of this theory, of course.)

Having said all that, I have no proof that the above is actually the case, and could be wrong. Thus - due to it being unfair to taunt or even gently mock the blocked - I mention it here instead of on their talkpage, and I don't mention their username here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

First, Demiurge1000, it took me a while to figure out what (who) you are talking about. Second, what do you mean UK, isn't the world based on how things work in the U.S.?
Seriously though, accepting that a 17 year old is studying law, would he/she actually be able to take legal action, on their own? Teenagers drawing up lawsuits? In the U.S. it takes a 4 year degree, 3 years in law school and then passing a very rigorous examination so the youngest lawyers one runs into here are 25 years old. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You did figure out what I was talking about, though.
But, and this may not have been very clear, when I wikilinked GCSE I intended to imply that this is not "studying law" as such. A course aimed at 14 to 16 year olds does not qualify someone to practice law in the UK, just as it does not in the USA. Such courses are designed as an introduction to legal theory and practice, and are at best "useful" for moving on to "proper" study of law some years later.
I have never differed from the viewpoint that there are almost certainly no lawsuits in action regarding this issue. My hint at the possible agegroup of the editor was intended to reinforce that.
(Lawsuits on behalf of minors are possible in the UK and presumably some other countries. But there is no lawsuit of that nature here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all of this information. It makes me wonder about the mentality and motivation of this Editor. A regular troll wouldn't go to AN/I and file a complaint. They seemed sincere but incompetent, like they were in over-their-head. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
True, but. A regular person who is concerned that someone might be breaking (copyright) law, starts by approaching one or two outlets for complaint about such things. When they get replies saying they are wrong, they say either "no", or "please could you explain some more", or "please could you explain what you are doing about this", or, "I'm going to sue you!" This one is going to sue everyone. Apparently. Real people don't do this. Not even good faith but confused people.
So yes, "in over their head" would also include a 17 year old enrolled in a GCSE law course who is confident that her understanding of things is right. She is wrong. The original poster was wildly aggressive about all this, across multiple locations, and was blocked for good reason. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Craig Breslow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Craig Breslow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #91

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

Talent show

I see that you removed American Idol from talent shows category because you think talent shows imply non-singing acts. That is untrue. Talent shows have always involve singers. Some of the earliest talent shows were in radio like Major Bowes Amateur Hour, and because it is on radio, singers were a big part of the shows (others include comedy acts and ventriloguists). Winners of the show included Frank Sinatra. It later became The Original Amateur Hour on television and that included other non-singing variety acts but singers were still part of the shows. Hzh (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN—help before going to FAC?

Hey there, Liz. I hope all's been well, and I hope you don't mind if I ask you for a bit of help: I am having an impossible time finding someone to look at one request I have for the C-SPAN article, so I thought I'd see if you were willing to consider it. As with Hobby Lobby, I'm asking in my capacity as a consultant, and I should stay away from direct editing. This is a different case: I've actually been getting C-SPAN ready for FAC, but first I have one final change to suggest for the Development section. Right now, one passage about its founding says:

Lamb shared his idea with John D. Evans in 1977, who with a number of others helped to co-found the network.[7][8] Early cable-television executive Bob Rosencrans provided the initial funding of $25,000 for Lamb to initiate C-SPAN in 1979 and other cable-television executives followed suit.[4][9]

But the phrase "who with a number of others help to co-found the network" is vague, so I did some additional research, and proposed the following:

Lamb shared his idea with several cable executives, who helped him launch the network. Among them were Bob Rosencrans who provided $25,000 of initial funding in 1979[1][2] and John D. Evans who provided the wiring and access to the headend needed for the distribution of the C-SPAN signal.[3][4]
Markup version of above text
Lamb shared his idea with several cable executives, who helped him launch the network. Among them were [[Bob Rosencrans]] who provided $25,000 of initial funding in 1979<ref name=Barnhart/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan05/features3.php |title=Original Cable Guy |accessdate=August 5, 2008 |work=college.columbia.edu |publisher=[[Columbia College, Columbia University|Columbia College]] |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080829153957/http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan05/features3.php <!--Added by H3llBot-->|archivedate=August 29, 2008}}</ref> and [[John D. Evans]] who provided the wiring and access to the [[cable television headend|headend]] needed for the distribution of the C-SPAN signal.<ref name=Paddock>{{cite news |url=http://www.ur.umich.edu/9798/Apr08_98/cspan.htm |date=April 8, 1998 |accessdate=October 8, 2012 |publisher=The University of Michigan |work=The University Record |location=Ann Arbor, Michigan |author=Travis Paddock |title=C-SPAN chief says network has 'extended the gallery'}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The C-SPAN Revolution |first=Stephen E. |last=Frantzich |coauthor=John Sullivan |publisher=[[University of Oklahoma Press]] |year=1996 |page=30 |isbn=0-8061-2870-4}}</ref>

If you agree that this is clearer would you be willing to add this to the article? If you have any questions about either of these, I'd be happy to answer. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

WWB Too, have we worked together or talked before? I'm drawing a blank right now.
I'll look over your article but I'll need to do it tomorrow when I have "fresh eyes" because I have no familiarity with the article and have never read it before. Right now, I'm in the midst of something else, it's Friday night and I'm tired. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Liz. Yep. we traded a few messages on my Talk page regarding Hobby Lobby last month. Thanks for being willing to look at the help request, and let me know if you have any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Done, WWB Too. I didn't see any problems with your proposed edit. Glad I could help. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad you agreed, and I very much appreciate it. And now I think I'm ready to take this back to FAC. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Project Catwalk (Netherlands)

Category:Project Catwalk (Netherlands), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Formal logic and philosophy

Hello. Your categorization work is great but I have a minor objection. You recently categorized six Greek logicians as philosophers. However, half of the Greek logicians to whom you added Category:Greek philosophers are formal logicians who have never published anything in the field of philosophy. Formal logic is not a branch of philosophical logic; it is a subfield of mathematics. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly correct, Omnipaedista. Let me refer you to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2013/Oct#philosophers galore where I was roundly instructed that some logicians are mathematicians, not philosophers.
I was led to believe in this conversation that my mistakes had been reverted by other editors and the Category:Philosophers tag has been removed so I didn't try to retrace my steps. But clearly not every revert occurred. Thank you for correcting the record, it's much appreciated!
I wish that there was some terminology to distinguish logicians who are in mathematics from logicians in philosophy but my comment on this question in the discussion didn't go very far. I know when I think about the field of logic, I think of philosophy, I wasn't aware that mathematical logic existed as a separate field. But now I know and I'm the richer for it. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for referring me to that discussion thread! --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daily Mail

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Daily Mail. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days!

In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.

At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on Sheldrake Arb Request?

If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at an arb request I'm working on regarding the shenanigans at Rupert Sheldrake? My email is on my talk page, if you had any feedback it would be greatly appreciated. I respect your opinion and knowledge of this topic. Thanks either way! The Cap'n (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, The Cap'n, I don't know very much about Sheldrake. I just noticed that this article kept coming up at WP:ANI so I went to Talk Page to see what was up. It seemed like those editors who were sympathetic to Sheldrake's views were getting targeted and bullied so I spoke up for them (or I tried to). That didn't work out too well so I stopped posting there back in October. So, I'm not knowledgeable about Sheldrake but I'm a little knowledgeable about the fighting over his article. I'll check out your sandbox statement in the next day or so (things are a little busy here). Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #86

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

Please comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

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

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Askahrc. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm notifying everyone to whom this Arb's request applies. Please consider responding.David in DC (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!

If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!

If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercy is the virtue of the wise.

Thank you for this comment. It showed mercy, something which is rarely found on WP:ANI. I have asked Flo to reopen the report so that the community can weigh in, but she has refused. Mercy and power are so very rarely compatible. MilesMoney (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Liz:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Queens Library
 Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013!
Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for borough articles on the history and the communities.
Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

This Month in Education: December 2013



Headlines
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.
If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Merry Christmas

Holiday Cheer
Victuallers talkback is wishing Liz Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger


inspired by this - you could do the same

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Wikidata weekly summary #87

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

Please comment on Talk:Michael D. Colacino

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael D. Colacino. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Missing Wikipedians

Hi Liz, they're both the same person. See the link proving this that is attached to the Bobblewik entry on the missing Wikipedians page. Graham87 14:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Graham87. There was no indication on either Talk Page that they were the same person. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

DR steps

Hi Liz and thanks for your recent comment, however there is no actual required steps to the DR process. One can go straight to DR/N or skip it entirely and use formal mediation or any other process available on Wikipedia. AFDs may also be done six months after the last AFD. It is unlikely that much has changed and it doubtful that is the best "next move" and you may be correct that it was my frustration talking, but the article needs a lot of work and one thing that we need not debate is copyright violations and youtube videos with no apparent notable source creation. Anyone can create a video of a convention interview/question and answer forum, but it is not a reliable source if fan made. I am not exactly convinced the editor misunderstands my points. They seem too well informed of Wikipedia policy and guidelines on the one hand in working on the article and now suddenly in the discussion doesn't seem to understand a copyright violation? OK. I will assume good fait, but they are still wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

An interview is an interview. If a person interviews, say, President Obama, his remarks, concerning his remarks, can be used as a source of information about himself whether it is in the NYTimes or a YouTube video. It's not like it was a fan commentary on a subject, it was an interview with the subject in question. They can be considered to be an expert about themselves. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Wikimedia Highlights from November 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for November 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 04:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category:Cody Robert Simpson

Hello again. I create a categories page for Category:Cody Robert Simpson for replace Category:Cody Simpson, Im not a sysop. Thanks. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #88

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
All the tea in China
For all your help and support through what is for me a rather tedious endeavour :-) Just don't demand exclusive rights from the Chinese Communist Party. Serendipodous 19:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page.. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category:Cody Simpson

I would consider using that category. Thank you. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Raul Julia-Levy#Son or not

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raul Julia-Levy#Son or not. Sam Sailor Sing 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, man, Sam Sailor Sing! I thought this was over. Well, thanks for letting me know, Sam. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARE notice

Information icon There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

BillMoyers

I have raised this editor's user name at RfC/User names.[10] TFD (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion courtesy notification

There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard that you may have been involved in earlier. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Asian Diasporas

Hi, I hate to bother you,but I removed your prod to this stub. It took me a few clicks, but I found a few sources that prove this radio show is clearly notable. Please, before you propose deletion of an article (and in no way am I trying to be pendantic), do the following:

  1. Make sure that there are no available sources online, per WP:BEFORE.
  2. Think about whether its deletion might be controversial - anything touching on minorities, especially immigration, might be controversial - and if it is, send it to WP:AfD instead.
  3. Inform all the major editors - especially newbies.

Thanks for your work on WP! Bearian (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Bearian. It seemed like a neglected, unsourced article. Sometimes a PROD can nudge interested parties into developing the article further. I really didn't consider it to be a sensitive subject or even consider the article's content, I was just responding to an unsourced article that I came across. This is probably only the 5th or 6th article I've PROD'd so I don't tag many articles and do so sparingly. But I will do more due diligence in the future to notify editors who have been involved with an article.
I should say that I was encouraged to PROD after this summer when I proposed a few articles at AfD and they got stuck in no consensus holding pattern...a more experienced editor suggested I use PROD instead. I didn't consider that it could be provocative or controversial.
I appreciate your diplomacy, Bearian. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Category:Philosophy academics

I have closed the CFD discussion of Category:Philosophy academics etc as "no consensus", and suggested an RFC.

Since you were the nominator, and the discussion was open for a ridiculously long time, I thought I should notify you of the close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, BrownHairedGirl. Unfortunately, I imagine an RfC would also be non-decisive. I might propose it again in six months and see if the mood has changed.
I've tried to become more detached about categories I propose at CfD in the five months I've been participating there (on and off). You win some, you lose some...and Wikipedia just keeps moving forward, regardless. Consensus changes, edits are made, undone and later redone. You can try to be persuasive in your proposals but much of the decision-making is completely out of any individual's control. Best to take a long-term view and not get too invested in any one decision/edit/article/category. Thanks again, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #89

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

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal/Requested articles

Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal/Requested articles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: C1 applies to categories. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What a basic mistake, Malik. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's Greetings


Merry Xmas!

Best wishes for a great Christmas, and for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #90

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

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Hey Liz!

Need some help over at WP:TOP25. Could use your input. Serendipodous 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Sharon Presley

I recently opened an RFC at Talk:Sharon Presley after a contentious AFD and disagreements about the inclusion of sources. I found your name randomly at WP:FRS and thought I would post here. Thank you in advance! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Barnhart was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Original Cable Guy". college.columbia.edu. Columbia College. Archived from the original on August 29, 2008. Retrieved August 5, 2008.
  3. ^ Travis Paddock (April 8, 1998). "C-SPAN chief says network has 'extended the gallery'". The University Record. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan. Retrieved October 8, 2012.
  4. ^ Frantzich, Stephen E. (1996). The C-SPAN Revolution. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 30. ISBN 0-8061-2870-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_3&oldid=1179082525"