Jump to content

User talk:Liz/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Talk:Corbyn (name)

Hi Liz, can you restore the deleted talk page pls? If I remember correctly there was a redirect from one talk to another which may have caused the wrong talk to be deleted? Regards Widefox; talk 07:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

yup, and delete Talk:Corbyn (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it turns out I deleted the destination of a redirect page instead of the redirect page itself. Thanks for bringing my attention to this, Widefox. Liz Read! Talk! 13:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2015

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Wikiproject Wikipedia

Thank you for moving the pages back to the original title. However, now my recent csd requests per WP:G8 appear inappropriate at first glance, because the pages now exist again (albeit with different content entirely). Mind mopping up (deleting) at least the subpage ones, to spare whomever views the speedy deletion requests the confusion.

Just noticed you already did this while I was in the process of typing. Thanks!

I'm not sure if the templates fall under the same criteria, but I've nominated them as well (some of them under multiple criteria). [1] Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Godsy, I've adapted the rationale for deletion to indicate that the G8 applied to a different deleted WikiProject page. I'll look at the templates but I think this is an effort that has to be reconsidered from scratch as WikiProjects are a group project, not a hierarchy with founders. I left the Members talk page as there was substantial discussion going on that could be moved to a new WikiProject with a different name. Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I had concerns related to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Community and WP:OWN when I noticed the project via the templates created the other day. I didn't even realize there were other issues, such as the usurpation of a name held by another WikiProject, at the time. Thanks again,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I just came across so many WikiProject Improving Wikipedia subpages and talk pages, Godsy, the editors even renamed categories rather than going through the WP:CFD process (and there are warning signs not to do so!). This will take time to clean up. Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hola

I left you a message on ANI, Tortle (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for handling the mess resulting from the unilateral new WikiProject Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks for helping me revert the seemingly endless edits resulting from my mistake and for handling the situation fairly. Tortle (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #174

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

September 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday September 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

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

This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project!

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

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

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

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:

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

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #175

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

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

MontanaBW RfA

Traditionally, comments and questions to other voters have been placed under their votes. Such questions do not belong on a talk page either, in my view, since they are in my case at least pretty simple queries rather than discussion points. Since this isn't an arbitration voters do not have sections and cmts generally need not or have not been placed under the commenter's vote. RfAs do need oversight by neutral minded admins. but questions which are disruptive must also be dealt with or they can derail an RfA. I'm not sure where such cmts should be placed. Just thinking out loud, I guess, and would like to see RfAs become more user friendly and less blood bath.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, I agree with your last point. But I also think that questions and comments can seem intrusive but are still valid. RfAs exist on a fine line between investigation and critique on one side and chastising, insults and slights on the other hand. Even as a participant, I could see that it is difficult to speak to the specifics of an editor's qualifications and experience without it seeming like a personal attack. I think credit should be given to those who can be civil in both their objections to the candidate and their defense to other's objections to their positions. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying. Nothing though, either of us has said addresses where cmts are placed so they are least disruptive to the process, and how to oversee an RfA. An issue is always that when one has concerns either with a candidate or other voter how does one lay that out so that the issues, sometimes experienced over the multiple dimensionality of years of behaviour be explained in a few type written words on a two dimensional computer screen. Thus, the big wrangles develop. Intrusion is fine and necessary actually, but such intrusions must be based on real issues supported by diffs that illustrate the issues or an RfA can be high jacked by voters. I would like to see RfAs revised; I suspect others would too. Thanks for your response. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

My complaint

OK, thanks for suggestions. I never posted any complaint before so I really don't know how to do it, or how it works. I really don't know how to do it. I'm not really sure what i'm even supposed to do, or how to post the diffs or break up the text. I should probably state I never intend to get anyone in trouble, I just want to issue resolved, because I am being bullied by this one editor for no reason, and i can't understand why. But one of the editors at the wiki basketball project and that I mentioned is an admin, and they never helped in any of this. So it is frustrating.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, in general, Bluesangrel, it helps if you look at other cases on the page and see which ones are provoking the most productive discussion. They are generally concise (brief, to the point), present diffs (so editors can see exactly what you are complaining about) and ask for a particular remedy. I know this can be a challenge if you see a conflict as being complex and longlasting but you really only need to mention the conduct that you believe is inappropriate, not the entire history of a dispute. Editors want to be able to quickly assess what the problem is and what you are asking them to do about it. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well (I will try to break this up and thanks a lot for your help), basically ArmstrongJulian, for some reason this editor got in their mind that I purposely made false edits to an article. Which i did not, and I have no idea how they got this idea. They kept accusing me of this over and over. I probably should have reported them then, but I just let it go. Then after a long time went by, I forgot all about it honestly. I was editing an article, and the sentence structure of it was just really weird and odd. So I looked at some of the recent edits and I saw also this editor was changing like dozens of basketball articles with the heights of the players, which as far as I knew, was not normal. So I just sent them a message to discuss about it. To me this is normal behavior in Wikipedia. But they got very rude and angry with me for no reason. I just asked why, and I was told they would not discuss anything with me and then they insulted me and so forth. But they said take it to basketball project of Wikipedia and we will discuss it there.
So I did. And then nothing, they started again with I refuse to discuss with you, insults, etc. So i was like whatever you know. But then, I saw by just chance, an article of mine was to be deleted. I never got notified of that. I saw it was by the same ArmstrongJulian. Then I saw they nominated a whole bunch of my articles and never notified me of any of them, and it was right after this. So OK, come on. This editor clearly nominated a bunch of my articles for deletion out of spite, and then did not notify me of it. Plus, false accusing me making false edits on purpose, being rude, they said I never source anything in any edit I make, all my editing is like I am in a fan forum, the list just goes on. There is more, but you get the idea. I really don't like to get anyone in trouble, I did not want to report this person, so I kept not doing so, but they keep on with the same attitude and behavior. And when I said to them, OK stop it, or I am reporting yo, then one of the admin Bagumba that works a lot in the basketball project, he said my one article up for deletion had no external sources, which was untrue, because it did. That is when I realized this had gone too far, and I had to report the situation. Let other admin settle it and stop it. I contribute a lot here, and I don;t want to get bullied and intimated, and I saw bagumba already suggest Wikipedia is not the place for me. So, basically, that is it. That is the issue, and I would like for the bullying and intimidation to stop.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI issue (see above)

Sorry for bothering you and please ignore this if you're not interested in the issue. You were one of a few independent commenters on a recent ANI in which I am involved. There is new material on the issue and I would appreciate your input on the subject. To be clear that does not mean I want you to support me over the other editor, just provide your insight even if it's detrimental to my arguments. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

ArmstrongJulian, I actually wrote a moderately-long comment to that ANI discussion but deleted it when I realized that it would not help resolve the situation. Sometimes pointing out less than admirable behavior just makes editors defensive and doesn't result in them adapting their ways. But I'll take a look at the new material and see if I have anything positive I can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Saying he's defensive is an understatement, I'll let you make your own mind up and comment if you want (I understand it's not your problem and doesn"t have to be), the new material I was talking of comes from Bagumba and myself, the rest is the usual delusional talk. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Thanks for taking the time to provide input at the noticeboard. In the interest of de-escalating yet possibly provide a teaching moment, can you consider helping out with the latest comment? The number of "their article" comments brings up WP:OWN to me, but I'll leave it to an uninvolved person to assess. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, what I gather from the recent comments is that Bluesangrel now understands the deletion process and is mad at Julian (and you by extension) for making him feel bad about arguing his case and the fact he was not notified about the AfD discussions. You can't talk someone out of being angry. The options I see are either for you and Julian to apologize for any antagonism you had towards him (a statement I've rarely seen happen at ANI but it can end some disputes) or just letting this one go and it will simmer down. This means letting go of having to have the last word.
I don't foresee much support in this ANI discussion for a block or topic ban on any editor but I do imagine that the personal animosity to continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. This is the difficult part of collaborative editing, when editors don't quit or retire and aren't blocked but when they continue to edit and editors have to, at the least, tolerate each other. This helps by focusing on the issues under dispute and letting go of sarcasm and talking down to editors who might have less experience. Just my 2 cents. I wish you all luck. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can handle the insults. For the community, WP:CTDAPE is a concern. Some of it I suspect is our different use and expectations of the English language. At any rate, it's a fine line of how much to let someone vent. I'll let others take it from here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I just saw this discussion. I was coming here to send you a thanks for being nice. Anyway, yes, I was upset about the way after the articles were put up for deletion and I was not notified, and then when I argued against them being deleted, I was given comments about that I was never editing with a source and I was editing like I was in a fan forum (and this was being implied as all my edits across the site), and told about how I should not be defending the articles with more than one vote comment and so forth. It was frustrating. And again, as I explained several times already and from the beginning, it was not a complaint directly about any editor, but about that issue. I said from the beginning, and several times, I specifically wanted no one to get in any discipline or trouble over that. Just that I did not like this being handled that way. But, I saw your comment about someone apologizing and letting any issue go, and ending any issue. I will do that then. I don't need any apology from anyone for anything, and anyone to admit anything.
I express my feeling and my issues I had in this now and already. But I hold no animosity on anyone. Because I saw you say about the basketball project and how it could cause issues there if we continue to discuss, and also contribute in editing in this part of Wikipedia. So that is stupid and needless to cause some nonsense like that. I certainly don't want anything like that. I don't want any personal issue with anyone here. I am only here to edit some articles some, and on occasion I will add an article, and I try to be as good as I can about adding something I think contributes in some way. I definitely do not come in the site to cause issues with others. So with these points you bring up, I explain my position and I will give apology to Julian if they feel bad in some way. Also, to Bagumba, if they feel the same. Actually, after I discussed some with Bagumba, I think this admin is just in disagreement with me in personal issues. I asked them some questions and they answered them and were normal to me. So I have no issues with them. If Julian feels they need some apology I will give one. I see also your comment about sarcasm. I tend to be sarcastic sometimes, and I thought about this, and I realize discussions on Wikipedia are not the best place for this. I thought about it, and I will try to stop doing that as much as possible from now on. It was just that Julian is sarcastic, and I believed in discussions just between a few editors, that sarcasm would be understood, especially when Julian was being sarcastic in several discussions. But I thought about it, and maybe other people don't register sarcasm. So I will not use that again, which I admit I did use a bit.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
My desire, Bluesangrel, for editors to look forward to coming to edit Wikipedia and for it to be a productive, collaborative environment. Sometimes, for all of us, that means having detachment towards the articles we work on as no one, even the article creator, owns them. It also means letting perceived slights go by like water off a duck's back. Life is too short and there is always conduct online that one can be upset with, the internet doesn't always bring out the best in people.
My main concern is that all of the editors involved in this dispute will continue to edit basketball articles and are likely to run into each other in the future. You either need to find a way to get along or just stay out of each other's way. The alternative is edit warring and the like which results in blocks and then we would lose some good editors which would be a shame. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am not someone that does edit warring. So that is not a problem. But I do like that if I ask someone a question at their talk page about something, that they are respectful in the discussion they have back with me on the issue. But in basketball project there are a lot of arguments in discussions, but I really don't see them as arguments of that nature. Just more like debates, where some editors are strongly set on their opinions. But there are not any fights going on there as far as I know. So I don't think this is a problem. As I said though, I will try to stop using any sarcasm in any comments, as that seems hard for some to know that you are just kidding sometimes.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a question maybe you can answer for me. Is it OK to remove discussions I started in the basketball project then that were related to this, so that the issue of any arguing there would be avoided? I am not sure if there is a rule against that or not? How does that work?Bluesangrel (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Bluesangrel, it is permitted to remove discussions you started on an article talk page unless another editor has responded to them. If no one has responded to a discussion you began, you can remove it. Alternatively, you can try simply posting that you withdraw the question and that might have the effect of ending the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Can I say that you told me I could do that so no one accuses me of anything? I don't know if anyone will care or whatever, but I don't want an issue.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Bluesangrel, what will matter more than saying "because Liz says so" is quoting the talk page guideline which is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. In fact, you would benefit by reading the entire page, WP:TPG, because it provides guidance on how to have positive, productive talk page conversations. You can not control how other editors behave but it always helps your case if you, yourself, are following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Does this Talk page guidelines#Requesting a close mean that I have to have an admin do it for me on the discussions that someone replied to?Bluesangrel (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Bluesangrel, there are thousands of talk page discussions going on every day on Wikipedia and most of them come to a natural conclusion and aren't formally closed. Some exceptions to this is that some editors like to close (hat) conversations on their talk page once they are finished, RfCs that are trying to come to a decision regarding a content or policy issue can be closed by an uninvolved editor or admin and often cases brought to WP:ANI and WP:AN are closed once the situation is resolved.
Often, you can end a discussion by simply stopping your participation. No one needs to have the last word at Wikipedia, if the issue arises again, a new discussion can be started. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So then do I ask someone to close it?Bluesangrel (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't answer this as an abstract question. Please provide a link so I can see what you are talking about. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiLove

Erpert blah, blah, blah... has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.

Spread the good health by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congratulations on your new admin status. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Erpert. I actually was sick this week so I appreciate your good wishes. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You, too? Best wishes for recovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Disruptive editor to AE

Re [2]; the section you posted in is reserved for the editors not wearing the Scarlet A. I've refactored them into the correct section. In the future please be more careful. NE Ent 01:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I was just sharing a relevant comment regarding the editor's request, not weighing in as an administrator in this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you online?

Hi Liz, a new circus may be unfolding at my RfA... a user is posting an oppose !vote (as they have the right to do, of course) but in the process is also deleting the remarks from someone who was a !support and is trying to comment. These two are involved on opposite sides of a contentious article and topic, and I'd not want to see either of them get into trouble for edit-warring at my RfA. One of them asked if an admin is around, and looks like you are still awake and online, so I'm pinging you. (As for me, I am going to go get some sleep... Monday, real life, work... meh... ) Montanabw(talk) 05:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, my hours have been spotty as I was traveling and then came down with a nasty bug. I hope you were able to find an admin to help you out. Let me know if this trouble is persisting. I see the RfA circus continues and I think you are handling it quite gracefully. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Several people have flat-out removed their support !votes; when I first posted mine, it was number 64; a day or two later and it was 60, now it's 58. 😔 Not to mention all the people chewing out the support !voters. This is getting a little too wild...I'm glad it's nearly over with.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

White Arabian mare, RfAs seem to come in two varieties: a) a mere formality of quick approval or b) a grueling 7 day experience. This RfA is clearly the latter. Editors can switch votes as the week goes on up to the time the RfA is closed. Many times diffs or information provided by other editors moves one to change from Oppose to Support or Support to Neutral. The experience requires endurance on the part of the candidate. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing that gets me are all the "I'm doing this because so and so did the same"--can't they think for themselves?White Arabian mare (Neigh) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Well, the thing about endorsements is that they can work for you or against you. Sometimes, editors support a candidate based mainly on the esteem they have for the candidate's nominator(s). Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You should to archive some of this stuff

Don't you think? Pretty soon it's going to surpass the Great Wall. Hope you are doing well other than that. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I will, Knowledgekid87. I usually only keep one month up on my user talk page but there was such a to-do over that August RfA, I thought I'd leave the messages about it up a little longer. Soon, it'll be Oct. 1st and it'll all be archived. I'm sorry if it is causing a slow load time for you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No im fine, and okay whatever you want then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #176

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

IP vandal

Hey, Liz. I'm not sure what to do about this IP: (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.234.250.154). They look like a vandal. RO(talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, RO. I've given the IP a temporary block to avoid further disruption. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz. RO(talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on Chetro Ketl, by the way! Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Boy was that time consuming to put together, but well worth it. You know, I noticed that IP you blocked was from Cox Communications, and I've seen IPs from them vandalize lots of articles in the last few months, so I was wondering if it's from a proxy server, and could we block them long-term on that basis? RO(talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The geolocation information says that it is a static IP and it hasn't edited very recently until today. Let me know if the editor hops to a different IP. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Talk:Chinese room". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 October 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Chinese room, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

committee motion

Why is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_Committee_Motions on ANI? Traditionally those type of announcements have gone on WP:AN? NE Ent 00:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, on the Clerks-l email list, the arbitrators asked for notices to be post on many pages, talk pages of WikiProjects, article talk pages, noticeboards, etc. in order to get more editors involved and providing feedback on the motions. WP:ANI was another page on the list of places where a notice could be posted. You're right, it isn't standard practice but the committee would like to hear more feedback from the community before casting their votes. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
They don't get enough abuse as is? Well, it's their dime. NE Ent 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through a lot of the arbitration committee archives and there doesn't seem to have been a period of time where the committee hasn't received its share of criticism. I think that most arbitrators accept that this is an unwelcome part of the job. Liz Read! Talk! 14:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed copyvio issue on Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development

Hi Liz – I recently noticed that you reverted my removal on Speedy deletion tag, Soon after you had reverted and i had to fix the copyvio material from the mentioned URL. Kindly have a look at this copyvio detector and you may consider removing the tag once you're satisfied with the fixed element. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alpha Monarch. I've replied to you on your user talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Bharatiya29's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFA

As far as I can see, Esquivalience is basically making technical improvements, small wording changes, and redoing some formatting; I don't see the changes as being specifically beneficial for nominators, but they do seem to make the page overall slightly more helpful. Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend, that's exactly the kind of critique I was looking for! I appreciate you taking a few moments to look over the contributions for me. I know that RfA instructions have been confusing to candidates in the past and I was just checking to make sure these were improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Dey.sanjoy

Hello Liz, I just wanted to touch base with you about this notice. The links are good for the user, however by working on an article in the Draft space is what is normally recommended for COI users. So I'm not sure what brought him to your attention and why you felt the need to tag an incomplete draft article before it has even been moved/approved for the main space. It does seem a bit WP:BITEY. He has been engaging me on my talk page looking for help and advice. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

McMatter, the editor has the same name as the subject of the draft article. It is recommended that editors not write autobiographical articles and I was passing that advice along. I can't see how an editor can write an article about themselves without the page being the subject of extra scrutiny and perhaps a quick deletion. I'm sorry if you or he found the notice bitey but it's better to alert him to COI concerns before the article is moved to main space. I'm glad you are assisting him, I'm sure an objective eye will help create a stronger article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for a full Saturday (drop-in any time!) of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for our upcoming "WikiArte" Latin America Edit-a-thon, for Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamericana, a communal day of creating, updating, improving, and translating Wikipedia articles about Latin American art and culture.

11:00am - 5:00 pm (drop-in anytime!) at MoMA Cullman Education and Research Building, 4 West 54th Street

All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. We will provide training sessions and resources for beginner Wikipedians, WiFi, reference materials, and suggested topics, as well as childcare and refreshments.

Please bring your laptop, power cord, and ideas for articles that need to be updated, translated, or created. You are welcome to edit all day or drop by to show your support, and to follow #WikiArte on social media!

Trainings for new and less experienced Wikipedia editors will be offered (in English) at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Tutorials and resources in Spanish will be available online, and participants are also encouraged to work on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions of Wikipedia.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Next event, October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

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

Mail

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

--NeilN talk to me 12:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice, mentioned you in an Arbitration Enforcement report

Giving you notice that I've mentioned you (with regards to a warning you gave as an admin) at an Arbitration Enforcement report.

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bachcell.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Cirt. As you know, a DS notice to the editor is required before sanctions can be imposed. Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup, and that's what you did. — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I hope to have my training wheels off soon enough. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, but good luck! — Cirt (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant Training wheels, the stabilizers put on bicycles that assist young children as they learn to ride a bike. I meant, as a new admin, every action taken in the first few months is part of learning how to be an administrator. Sorry for if I was unclear. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Got the reference, didn't know you were a new admin. Congratulations! And good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #177

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

Why?

[3]. I was just making a space in preparation for my evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was standardizing the format so that your section resembled that of other editors who are participating in the case. It was an empty section that had no information posted in it and it looked like a mistake. I would think you'd add the header to a section after you had added the section, not before. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Tryptofish. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I restored it, no problem. (I have an idiosyncratic habit of making a section header, and then editing that section, on complex and highly edited discussion pages.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Request for restoring deleted page Sibidharan on 21:27, 30 October 2015

I didn't know whether you have read all the below citations or not. The person has been noted in many popular media including The Hindu, The Hindu (Tamil), Ananda Vikatan, Dinakaran, Dinamani, Thanthi TV. What is the reason for deleting the page? All the sources are given properly!

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (

Some of Tamil articles has used his name in the native language which spells சிபிதரன். — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjmani (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The person is noted in the Popular Indian News Paper The Hindu. http://www.thehindu.com/features/kids/a-selftaught-hacker-tells-us-what-hacking-is-all-about/article7795997.ece

The person is noted in the popular Tamil Magazine Ananda Vikatan http://www.vikatan.com/article.php?aid=109417

The person is noted in a popular Tamil News Paper Dinakaran http://www.dinakaran.com/News_Detail.asp?Nid=150160

The person is noted in popular Tamil News Paper Dinamani http://www.dinamani.com/book_reviews/2015/10/12/இலக்கியச்-சங்கமம்/article3075181.ece

The person is noted in the Popular Tamil News Channel Thanthi TV in the search operation of Missing Dornier DO228 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UYQsjyhd3s

The person is noted in the Popular Tamil News Paper The Hindu (Tamil) in the search operation of Missing Dornier DO228 http://tamil.thehindu.com/tamilnadu/புதுச்சேரி-கடற்பகுதியில்-3வது-நாளாக-விமானத்தை-தேடும்-பணி-தீவிரம்/article7308515.ece

The person is noted in Tamil News Publisher Tamilmithran in the search operation of Missing Dornier DO228 http://www.tamilmithran.com/article-source/Mjc4NTQ4/புதுச்சேரி-கடற்பகுதியில்-3-வது-நாளாக-விமானத்தை-தேடும்-பணி-தீவிரம்%EF%BB%BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjmani (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This person has proper notability and doesn't require speedy deletion.

) --Anjmani 18:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

On the clerking position. I still felt guilty that I bailed but you've made it easier, because I know it is in good hands. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about bailing...but thank you for the compliment! Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard

I replied to your comment about Aaron Rodgers. you can reply there. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I found another source on the NFL website, too, so I'll make the edit. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Your Recent Revert

My CSD criterion for Mack Garner was "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone or unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." How was the BLP sourced? Please ping me when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: the criteria for G10 is These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.. This article might be unsourced but there is nothing negative in the short stub at all and that is a requirement for an attack page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw your additional revert. How about this though:

"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)" from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons? Twinkle seems to be incorrect, then, in saying "negatively in tone [OR] unsourced," where, under G10, it says "entirely negative in tone [AND] unsourced." --JustBerry (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I'm not saying that there are no grounds for speedy deletion of these articles. It's just that G10 isn't the correct tag.
"Negative in tone" would be if a recent article said, "George Smith is a crook who steals money from his clients. It's amazing that he hasn't been arrested and sent to prison. And he's an ugly dude, too." That is an attack page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I understand your point and am well-aware what an attack page is. The problem is that I don't think Twinkle's description of G10 is correct. --JustBerry (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
JustBerry, the article also had a source. --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And why in the world did you move it to draft space? --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: The user said themselves that it was their first edit; it is highly recommended that inexperienced users submit to WP:AfC, or at least make an article in the draftspace. Do you seriously think the article is ready for the mainspace? If so, by all means, undo my actions on that draft, but I don't agree. Also, about the ref, the ref on the bottom was updated, although the link was originally there. --JustBerry (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely on Twinkle's abbreviation of deletion criteria to be your guide. And also, please do not tag a page for deletion so soon after it has been created because the editor might still be working on it. In one case, a minute after the article was created, you tagged. That is seen as very bitey to new editors. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What are sandboxes for then? If you insist, the article can be left in the mainspace. --JustBerry (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
JustBerry, the article is a perfect example of a stub. The subject is clearly notable, the prose is clear, and it has a good source. Now we need volunteers to expand it. --NeilN talk to me 21:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I suppose I see your point. I'll look out for that in the future; thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that new users don't always "get" about the sandbox thing. Sometimes they just dive in headfirst. Another reason not to bite. Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As I trouted JustBerry for this AfD and he asked me to return here, just a comment that this was an utterly ridiculous tag because there was absolutely nothing negative in the very first post. Please re-read WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Absolutely no criteria for deletion of a sourced stub like this exists. Can this be stated any more clearly? Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I'm not sure what part of "I'll look out for that in the future" wasn't clear to you. --JustBerry (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The part that said, "I'm sorry that I put the wrong tag on this article that claimed it was an attack piece." You could also thank me for the trout, they are quite tasty. Montanabw(talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Education is the preferred method. I think JustBerry will be more careful in the future. I know I've been criticized for a few of my CSD tags...you make mistakes, you learn and hopefully you don't make them in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: As cheesy as it may sound, if it's not explicitly my fault, I don't usually prefer taking full blame for it. It should be understood, quite frankly, that Twinkle had a wrong description of the tag. If you say that "Twinkle shouldn't be relied upon," I would like to disagree, considering how many users use Twinkle. In any event, I understand the point here and will be more mindful of it in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I might suggest that if there is no suitable option in Twinkle, them maybe Twinkle or CSD isn't appropriate, and {{subst:PROD}} would be a better option? Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, before tagging you should ask yourself not only if the article can be tagged, but also if it should be tagged. First step is to see who created it. If it's an experienced editor, assume they know what they're doing and pop a question on their talk page if you want to (aka what I refer to as, "Don't annoy content creators with the small stuff"). If it's a newbie, and the content looks credible and non-spammish, consider doing a WP:BEFORE. I know that's for AFD nominations but you'll definitely get a good feeling if you can help a new editor out by finding a source or just fixing up some formatting issues, even if it's a one or two sentence article. For example, this one sentence stub I fought to save turned into this and appeared on the Main Page as a DYK item thanks to the efforts of other editors. --NeilN talk to me 02:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Quite frankly, thanks a lot for that comment. I will take it to heart in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

talkback

NE Ent 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #178

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

Administrative request

It has come to my attention that Wnt, who has more than 60 good starts and who has been around the block at En-WP many times over many years, still does not have the Auto-Reviewed permission for new starts. Will you please take a look at his editing history and enable him for this? Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, is there a reason he can't post a request at WP:PERM/PCR? It's a request that is likely to be granted. Except for autopatrol rights, the editor who desires the rights needs to ask for them, rather than a third party. Liz Read! Talk! 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Rollback is granted without an explicit request as well. Usually when an admin notices an experienced editor constantly doing recent changes patrol. --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • My experience with this permission is that it is something that can be bestowed by an administrator with nobody asking (as it was in my case) or at the request of third parties who note the oversight (as in this case; i've made several such requests over the years). It's one of the little perks of your Admin toolkit that you can give these Mega Barnstars to worthy content people (while at the same time easing the workload on the overworked new page patrollers). Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: I'm afraid you've blundered into a fossil dispute. This dates back to the introduction of WP:Pending Changes - I was one of some people notified one day that I'd been given the permission while the feature was experimental. I then had a disagreement with User:Ianmacm User:Scott MacDonald about whether BLP meant taking out mention of Pippa Middleton's "topless photos", in which, in the midst of a more timid debate, I said what Wikipedia ought to do was to reproduce the photos at low resolution under Fair Use, if only to clue readers in that to the British Press what looked like a speckled bikini counts as "topless". Well, he revoked the permission for suggesting that. There was a big argument, someone wrote an essay (I forget who or where), nothing much happened except that I came to be a strong opponent of Pending Changes, and am glad to see at least that it remains an uncommon method of article protection. I suppose at some point the auto-review right must have been merged with it - I forgot there was an auto-review right actually. Anyway, I still have the opinion that the Fair Use photos would be the best approach to that article, and I'm not eager to ask for any permission that might imply giving up the right to say so. Not to mention that with Pending Changes permission it is actually harder to tell what is going on with the system with the permission since everything you do is auto-accepted; if I blunder into an egregious case I'll just complain about it. Last but not least, I know I recently sort-of-agreed with you about an Arbcom case, which makes this too political a suggestion to really be an honest barnstar. At some point I may try to dig into this again, but not today. Thanks anyway though! Wnt (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction - it was User:Scott MacDonald. The discussion page (not really an essay) was here My memory must be getting fritzy. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Wnt. I'm glad I didn't act before hearing from you. Should you wish to gain the right, please simply post a request! Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, autopatrolled. He should have that flag, bang bang, we're done. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done Yes, reviewer usually refers to the right to review pending changes. I've given Wnt autopatrol rights. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ta. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for a full day and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture.

noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St

In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon—to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both.

The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome.

Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for help with Category move

Hi Liz, Hoping you can use your powers to help out with fixing a problem. I boldly moved Category:Singles_Certified_Platinum_by_the_Australian_Recording_Industry_Association to Category:Singles_certified_platinum_by_the_Australian_Recording_Industry_Association to match the same capitalization as for other nations; but unfortunately the pages in that category have not moved across.

I've tried to move the category back to the original location, but do not have sufficient access to do so.

Would it be possible for you to remove the redirect & move the page back? Appreciate any assistance that you can provide. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Update - Actually looks like it might be fixed now. Renamed category is populated. I will raise an XfD to clean up the redirect. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, it's never a good idea to move a category like you'd move an article because categories do not have redirects. Next time, you should go to WP:CFD and add it as a speedy rename/delete if it is a simple move and is unlikely to be contested. The admins working at CfD have a lot of experience with speedy renames plus, there is a bot which can change the category names on the associated pages rather than having to do so manually. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Many thanks for the excellent advice; I shall definitely bear it in mind going forward. A lot of interesting information as WP:CFD. Looking over the bit on CATREDs, it looks like the redirect should remain, at least for a short while; so no cleanup looks to be required at this stage. In the words of the Bard, alls well that ends. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Phyllis

Hi Liz. I saw that you moved Phyllis Lapin-Vance earlier per WP:MAIDEN. I just wanted to let you know NBC does list the character as Lapin-Vance [4] while Pam's character is listed only as Halpert [5]. Calidum 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Calidum, WP:MAIDEN was the rationale in the CSD tag that was placed on the article (which is now no longer visible in the page history) and it seemed sound to me at the time. I now note that this article has been moved from Phyllis Vance to Phyllis Lapin then to Phyllis Lapin-Vance and now back to Phyllis Vance.
The title of this article should be discussed at Talk:The Office (U.S. TV series) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Office task force to get a consensus. Or you can start a discussion at WP:RM if you think that would be a better venue. With so many moves for this article, I'm not going to move it back until there is some agreement on what this article should be titled. Liz Read! Talk! 13:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't seen the CSD tag. I don't really have strong feelings about the name (I can't remember the hyphenated name being used on the show) so I don't plan on moving it back. Calidum 23:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Calidum, after this move, I looked into WP:RM and found there was a similar discussion going on about Pam Halpert which has the opposite conclusion (going with her married name, not maiden name). Check that out if you have an opinion on it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

reminder

A7 does not apply to schools, and all high schools are considered notable. Even Al-Rehman School of Alpha Studies. 10th grade = high school in most of the world. DGG ( talk ) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DGG, my attention was drawn to this article because I was looking through the deletion log, seeing if any deleted articles had been recreated. This article had been deleted on October 7, 2015 by RHaworth (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I had some doubts about deleting a recreated article about a high school which is why I tagged it instead of deleting it myself. Thanks for informing me that articles about high schools are always considered notable and these articles are not self-promotional. Liz Read! Talk! 13:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
they can be promotional. I have deleted some via G11 myself, if they are mainly devoted to saying how good the school is in an advertising manner. This had one sentence of so of that only, which I removed. G11 is tricky, because it has no clear boundaries, and various admins go by different standards--& even one admin will go by different standards depending of degree of exasperation with inadequate new articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that a better way of saying this is that we have a very strong working consensus, established by the consistent outcome of hundreds or thousands of deletion debates, that accredited, degree awarding high schools are presumed notable by the community. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RM#TR

Hi! I'm writing about [6]. What was not correct? --Holopoman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Holopoman,
I misunderstood the CSD rationale so I have reverted my edit. I will let an administrator more experienced in page move and accompanying deletions handle this page. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. Liz Read! Talk! 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok! Thank you for your help. --Holopoman (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aticles for deletion/1369 Coffeehouse

It's important to understand that

  1. Redirects are cheap
  2. Redirects have more than one purpose.

This page sat at that location for several years. Therefore, unless there is a good reason a redirect should exist to the current location. The principle behind this is WP:Don't break the web - (essay not written yet) notably based on Tim Berners-Lee's (1998) dictum Cool URIs don't change.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Rich, it is a misspelling that I don't believe any reader or editor would ever make, especially looking for an article that was deleted years ago. I can't see what purpose it had as most people know that the word is articles not aticles. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly one editor (me) did make that error in 2010.
However if the page were recently created, I'd agree, or at least not object to the rationale (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect). However the page sat there for four years, from 15 April 2010‎ until a couple of days ago.
We cannot assume that nothing in the entire world links to that URL.
The reason I raise this is not that this particular redirect is important, it's that the principle is very important. We should never break a URL without good reason.
This is particularly the case with WP redirects which are uber-cheap in terms of resource. In fact it costs more to delete a redirect than to keep it, in almost every way of measuring.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC).
I'll keep all of that sound advice in mind, Rich. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hi, please note that when I create categories, they are not empty at time of creation. I see the ones in the Philippines that you have tagged. For "educational institutions" in ..., the categories were populated originally, but the articles have been further categorized so these categories are not needed.Jllm06 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Jllm06, in the past, I have just stumbled across empty categories every once in a while. But I found a database list and have been tagging a lot of them today. I saw your name on a bunch of them (but not as many as another prolific category creator!) so I thought I'd drop you a note. Since then, I've seen that some of the categories were emptied and blanked, and I assume the editor thought then someone else would see them and tag them for deletion. You do a lot of categorization so it is natural that some of the ones you created have been superseded and are no longer necessary.
I'm sorry if my note sounded like I was chiding you because I know how much experience you have editing, both in terms of how long you've been editing and how many edits you have made. That was not my intent. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

RFPP

Hey Liz, great to see you at RFPP. You might want to use this script: User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper. It saves you from having to look up codes. P.S. Fixed one of your responses. --NeilN talk to me 00:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for fixing my mistake. I tried adding the code twice, got error messages but I think I finally got it right. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives characters (2010s)

Hi, Liz. Here you said the page has been protected but, when I go to the page it has not been protected.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, I thought I protected that page but my contributions list says otherwise. I must not have finished the process. It is protected now. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Exposure is not the same thing as radiation

As the page you deleted made perfectly clear. Exposure is caused by radiation, it is not radiation. The radiation article as it currently exists does not anywhere define what exposure is, so you cannot really say that the Exposure (radiation) page was redundant.

Don't believe me? Put in a [citation needed] tag and give me a week or two to provide references. I was in the process of putting together some references for the stub article. I did not realize I was up against a ticking clock.

Radiation is not a measure of charge per unit mass. Exposure is.

Rwflammang (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rwflammang, you are free to work on an article in your sandbox, User:Rwflammang/Sandbox, until you think it is ready to put into the main Wikipedia space. These pages are considered drafts are are left alone unless there are problems like copyright infringement. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Please restore the deleted article, and I will work on it in the main wikipedia space. It was certainly no worse than any other beginning stub article, and better than most. The deletion was clearly based on the mistaken assumption that Exposure (radiation) was the same thing as Radiation. In the main Wikipedia space, it will be easier for other editors of nuclear articles to find and improve than it would be in my sandbox, and it will be more easily linked to in those articles that mention exposure, such as roentgen (unit), rad (unit), and rem (unit). Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Rwflammang, I've put the material at User:Rwflammang/Sandbox. I recommend you submit any future articles to Articles for Creation rather than putting them directly into Wikipedia main space. At AfC, an experienced editor will review your article and it won't face immediate deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Deletion of SCHULTCHEN page

Hi Liz,

Seems my family heritage page, Christopher Franz SChultchen was deleted.

Firstly, I am not anti Semtic. I understand the information expressed may sound like a well tailored hoax, but it is not. May you please restore it for me, so I may at least preserve the information. I may even compromise with you and edit it as "a conspiracy theory" if you wish. However it is only a confirmation of genius then isn't it?

Thanks so much, Please reply,

Sincerely CHRSTOPHER FRANZ SCHULTCHEN Tandynfan (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tandynfan, that article was deleted because it was seen as an obvious hoax article. Even if it is not, Wikipedia is not the proper location for a "family heritage page". Maybe you could create a website or blog to write about your family. If you want to write legitimate articles in the future, please use your sandbox and don't put articles in Wikipedia main space. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please send my work back, I was just getting started

Be civil Tandynfan (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Father immaculate, Franz Schuld was also known as, Franz Kafka during his studies in Eastern Europe. His given name Schultchen, is a combination of German and Hebrew, meaning to teach God's grace. It remains the definitive Yiddish name, Schultchen, without English accent, pronounced, Schuld.
Kafka, a fictional character, was innovative in propaganda techniques for Nazi party, then known as Ashkenazi education program, as his likeness remained a mystery.
This is pure rubbish. I'm not going to restore this material. Please find another website where this inventive writing is welcomed. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Facts

If my family heritage is connected to Churchill and Ferdinand, why would it be inappropriate to create this Wikipedia page? With lovely photos... Tandynfan (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've given you my response. And I would bet it would be the same answer from any other administrator. Any further messages to this talk page will be reverted and you are becoming disruptive. I've tried to be kind and suggest you find another website to edit on because if you continue on in this manner, you will find yourself blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #179

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

Template:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub

I read on WP:TFD and WP:CFD that stub-type templates are considered categories, hence my tag for speedy deletion under C1. Where should I go to get the category deleted? Cobblet (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cobblet, what is the category you want deleted? CSD C1 is only for empty categories, that is categories that contain no articles or pages.
You can look at CSD for criteria for templates but, you're right, TFD says "Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories", so if the CSD criteria don't fit, propose a deletion at CFD. I hope that helps.Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Denisarona. I've been looking over the first edits of newly registered accounts and came across this unexpected edit. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

CSD, AFD and hoaxes

Hey, I simply wanted to mention I've noticed you often won't the AfDs if the article has been speedied (I haven't seen it recently but I thought I'd mention anyway). Second, would you please move Francisco Palma Domingo to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? Cheers , SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, I don't understand. Do you mean that if an article has been tagged with a CSD tag, I won't send it to AfD? That's probably true as I created several AfDs for articles that were speedy deleted before the discussion even got started. So, I assumed that the speedy delete was often acted on more immediately than AfDs. Do you have an example that you are thinking of, in case I was mistaken? I'm still learning.
I'm not familiar moving articles into Wikipedia space but I will look into it. I hope I can oblige. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't pinpoint an example at this moment but it is a case of an AfD (started by anyone) and you speedy deleted it without closing the open AfD. Several users including myself patrol AfD logs to close any still open AfDs but it helps when the deleting admin can close it themselves. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand now. I think I've done that once or twice. I haven't closed an AfD yet so I'll figure out the right templates to use and do so in the future.
As for the hoax article, most of those listed on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia stayed up for at least one year (if not several years) so I don't know if having a hoax article up for three weeks will qualify. Hoax articles like that one get posted and deleted every day so I'm not sure if this one was particularly notable. But I saw some editing that needs to be done on that page so I'll become more familiar with the standards of including a hoax over the next few days. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Softblock

I gather it's not that easy to accidentally override another admin's block these days. So I have to question, softblock, really? -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

zzuuzz, I based that block on their username. I should have looked at their contributions. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Liz Read! Talk! 10:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention in this matter. I'm not so bothered about the autoblock and so on, but this way they get a more appropriate message. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Consideration for Arbitration Clerk

Hi Liz, I was wondering if you would consider me for becoming a clerk trainee? samtar (msg) 20:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Samtar, unlike editor adoption, clerk trainees need to contact the clerks team and request a review. It's not a one-on-one process of instruction. Just read over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration clerks seeking new volunteers and follow the guidance on sending in an email message to the list outlining your editing background and someone on the team will contact you.
I will say that we just appointed three new trainee clerks and probably won't be taking on new clerks for a few more months. But every year, there is a need for new trainees, if you are still interested in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies - I must have misread this, especially the section which states "Editors interested in becoming a clerk should contact a current full clerk and ask that they be considered.". Many thanks :) samtar (msg) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for an apology! And you did contact a clerk and I instructed you to send in an email message to the clerks list. That's just how things are done now. Reviewing questionnaires sent back from applicants is done by all clerks and the arbitrators who want to participate via email so it's not a decision made by one individual. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense! Many thanks for your help Liz, have a nice day! samtar (msg) 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't received it, Yamaguchi先生. I know GMail has issues with some mail formats (my emails from my Yahoo! account sent through Wikipedia's "Email this user" were never received). I'll let you know if it is delivered. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yamaguchi先生. I've received and responded to your email message. I hope it's helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in September 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naka Muzzafra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial area. 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) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Open source video games template

I just saw you deleted the page Template:Open source video games, using the rule G8 as reason. However, I don't understand what was wrong with this template and justified a such deletion. Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nicolas.le-guen,
Template:Open source video games was merely a redirect to Template:Open-source video games, a page which was deleted due to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 5#Template:Open-source video games. CSD G8 is applied to pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page and since that template was a redirect to a deleted template, it served no purpose. If you would like to recreate Template:Open-source video games, I'd read over the deletion discussion to see why the editors decided the page should be deleted and keep those considerations in mind. Liz Read! Talk! 12:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Calicut Review

Hi Liz. You deleted Calicut Review on 10 October, I recall it being a soft redirect to the same article on Malayalam Wikipedia that had been speedy deleted. Could you look up the article title on ml:w in the redirect and could you tell me which account created the redirect, please. I'm asking to know if there is evidence for adding other accounts to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aboobackeramani. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, I went to ml:കാലിക്കറ്റ്‌ റിവ്യൂ and could see that the article was deleted by Irvin calicut. But since the article has been deleted, I can not see who created that page because it is on another wikipedia and it is only available to admins there.
The account who created the page on the English Wikipedia was CalicutReview, who is blocked and Sriharitvm also changed the redirect on that page but those were their only edits. I'm not sure if this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It does, I will add it to the SPI filing, thank you, Liz. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Sam Sailor, what is interesting is that there are completely different accounts who edited Calicut Review and Talk:Calicut Review. I think you have more accounts to add to your list. Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
AamPP (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) already added, but tell me if notice more. Al Ameer son very obviously is not part of the farm. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't know what to do about this

I'm contacting you because you're an admin. There was a user who registered as USPC2015 and was changing everything on United States Pony Clubs, saying it was inaccurate. They blanked the article once and I reverted it. Montanabw told them they were wrong and I told them they were wrong. They are citing the USPC as their only source for their changes, even though I described citing other sources like Practical Horseman magazine on their talk page. They claim to be working for Pony Club, which I know means corporate account and is not allowed. Now they have created another account called Acuratehorse or something and are at it again. I just don't know what to do. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you and Montanabw are bringing up valid concerns on USPC2015's talk page and having a discussion which is good. If it turns into edit-warring or there is belligerence, please let me know. But a lot of what we do at Wikipedia is education and explaining to new editors the standards and practices of Wikipedia and that occurs through dialogue.
As for Acuratehorse, I posted a welcome message and advised them to be careful if they have a conflict-of-interest. I do not have checkuser access so I can't check to see if they are two accounts used by the same person. You can either file an inquiry at WP:SPI or contact a checkuser directly, offer your evidence and perhaps they will do a quick check for you. I also see the use of IP216.7.136.198 but I imagine that this is USPC2015 editing logged out.
I have put the article on my watchlist but I've found in situations like this, what helps the most is having more editors keeping tabs on an article in case the situation escalates. Right now, you're in the midst of discussion and working out differences which can be challenging. But I don't currently see behavior that is blockworthy. Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the watchlisting, Liz. Feel free to intervene as you see fit. I've run into these sorts before and they just don't have a clue and go off calling me an evil reptilian kitten-eater when all I'm trying to do is explain to them - on my volunteer time - that they can't just copy and paste the whole website verbatim and then demand that we do it their way... sigh. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and

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

One of the issues I had was that they copy-pasted from the USPC website and then told me when I suggested they cite a magazine article or something else, that that would be plagiarism. 😛 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd definitely keep an eye on the article. But so far the editing doesn't reach the threshold of disruption. I hope both editors take Montanabw's advice and come to discuss the matter on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be the same person... or two people who know each other. Sigh. Once again, someone is apt to stomp off in a huff, muttering about how impossible it is to edit wikipedia, all because they Just. Won't. Listen. For the record, here is a good way to work with a COI editor and an example of one who had a great attitude: [7] Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Aftab Group

Hi Liz,

I was making an article on Aftab Group in Bangladesh. Which is a massive business group with a big number of listed companies under it.

I so forth tried to be fair in writing, added NO wow words, NO promotional words, NO untrue words, but the article got deleted twice.

I have found many other giant Bangladeshi groups are still existing here in Wiki like a) Navana Group b) Pran-RFL group etc

Apart from Bangladesh Aftab group has its venture and offices in India, Thailand, USA, UK, Brazil, Australia. All together 15000 employees are working under the group.

It has 2 Public Limited companies under the group, one commercial bank with 224 branches.

Every year a lot of business students do apprenticeship, internship and research work on the organogram, financials and case studies of companies under Aftab Group.

So i believe this group should be existing in Wiki for the grater benefits on the students, investors, suppliers, researchers.

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME BY GIVING A REFERENCE ARTICLE / REFERENCE GROUP'S ARTICLE WHICH I CAN FOLLOW AND CONTRIBUTE AN ARTICLE ON AFTAB GROUP? I HAVE DONE RESEARCH JOB THERE AND I HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF INFORMATION OF THAT GROUP WITH ME.

sadik Major in Finance and Economics Independent University Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharifsadik (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

First, Sharifsadik, read the messages on your talk page, especially User talk:Sharifsadik#User:Sharifsadik/Sandbox that suggests to you that you work on articles in your sandbox. Alternatively, you can create a draft article (like Draft:Aftab Group) where you could work on the article and it will not be vulnerable to speedy deletion unless there are copyright violations or it is seen as blatant advertising. Additionally, I recommend going to Wikipedia:Your first article and following the advice there.
I have the feeling that there is some pressure on you to have this article appear in Wikipedia main space right now and that is just not going to work without the article meeting Wikipedia standards (see your Welcome message for links). You also might have a conflict of interest if you are creating these articles on someone else's behalf so you should read up on that policy as well. Liz Read! Talk! 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your move of List of unlawfully killed transgender people

I have reverted this move. I understand your thinking, but you have not necessarily considered that people may be killed by accident (lawful), and other lawful means including lawful execution.

There was much discussion about the article's title on the talk page some time ago. If you wish to move the article to a new title then this one requires consensus. I have invoked WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted, and I am proposing a discussion, though on the article's talk page, not here. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent, I have no objections to your reversions. I'll make sure the redirects I changed are changed back. The wording of this title is very awkward as most of the lists of people killed are either about murders or specify the type of death (electrocution, war, assassination, etc.).
I looked on the talk page to see if there were any recent discussions about the title but the ones that exist were from years ago. An editor brought up the issue in 2014 but the suggestion didn't get much response so I concluded that there wasn't any strong opinion on the matter. I see that I was wrong about that. I still think it is a terrible article title but I'll leave the matter to those editors who contribute to this page. Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the title is clunky and even that the article is poor. It is, at best, a working title. I would love someone to come up with a far better title that encompasses the fact that the folk slain were Trans and that the death was not by lawful means. Are you up for making the attempt?
I think I changed the redirects. I wondered about leaving it to a bot, but decided I ought to have a go myself. Fiddle Faddle 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I have set up a discussion here and invite you to contribute. I ma by no means wedded to the current title, as you can see. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I have a very long list of articles I'm keeping an eye on but I'd like to hear people's opinions about this suggested change. Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Me too. I was wondering about broadening to to RFC. What are your thoughts on that? Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Pail & Shovel Party

Hi, Liz,

Got your notification of deletion of Pail & Shovel. Not a big deal, but part of my rationale for posting it include the following:

  1. There are already several references to the topic from other Wikipages.
  2. Several of the party's exploits actually made national news at the time.
  3. The P&S "phenomenon" fits broadly into the college political climate of the time. It was a harbinger of a kind of counter-counter-culture that had become disenchanted with the popular "Free Abby Hoffman" and other liberal political movements at the time. That seems archival-worthy.
  4. The party's exploits are part of broader American folklore. Do a web search on "flamingo university wisconsin" and count the hits; similarly with "statue liberty university wisconsin"

At least for the sake of explaining an otherwise unnecessarilly cryptic references to the topic in articles about "Jay Kennedy", "Jim Mallon", "Andrew Mozina", and "Statue of Liberty in popular culture", it seems that at least a token explanatory piece is in order. One can probably argue that it's better to keep the Wikipedia references as self-contained as possible.

Since Wikipedia articles grow piecemeal, the initial stub of course didn't provide any complete rationale justifying the page's existence. I didn't know that was a criterion to seed an article. Back on Ward's Wiki we let such content emerge organically from community, and in this case I was hoping that such justification would come from people closer to the details of the party than I was afforded the opportunity to enjoy.

In the mean time, thanks for your hard work at that end.

Jcoplien (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Jcoplien, if you would like to work on Pail & Shovel Party, ask the admin who deleted the page, Just Chilling, if they can put the article into your sandbox or in Draft space. This will allow you to edit the article, improving the sourcing, and as long as there aren't copyright violations or promotional content, you can work on it for at least six months before it might face deletion. When you feel it is ready, you can submit it to Articles for creation and have it reviewed by an experienced editor. Liz Read! Talk! 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for cleaning up categories on numerous typhoon articles! Some of these can be quite a mess.

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit, well, what I'm doing is just making sure that every typhoon in the subcategories is also listed in Category:Typhoons. I'm not working on the regional categories quite yet. Thanks for the kitten! Liz Read! Talk! 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Message

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

Alex|The|Whovian 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I request that you answer this immediately. I'm noting your contributions after the above post. Regards. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kalyan Varma

Thank you liz. Looks like the post on Kalyan Varma has been removed, but I do not see it in my sandbox. Any way to retrieve it? Venkatraman.blr (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Venkatraman.blr, I'll take care of that for you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #180

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

Deleted Page

Hi Liz, will you let me know why specifically the content on the Spireon page was unacceptable and deleted? Lambao.truong (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lambao.truong,
Typically with speedy deletions like this, an editor tags the article for deletion and then an administrator deletes the article. I deleted the article based on a CSD G4 tag which is recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, specifically, it was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spireon that the article should be deleted.
What I recommend to you if you want to write an article on this subject is to work on it in your sandbox (User:Lambao.truong/Sandbox). Sandboxes are for creating articles and are not subject to speedy deletion unless there are certain concerns like copyright infringements.
Also, when you believe you have established notability of the subject using reliable sources, submit it to Articles for Creation which will review the article for you. If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the new editor trying to write about "the Google story"

Can you contact the instructor of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Ontario Institute of Technology/New Media Theory and Practice (Fall) and explain to them what is happening, so that they can give their students proper guidance so they may have a positive experience editing Wikipedia? I think the best advice is to help them find a niche that hasn't already been covered, and make sure they have the training and tools necessary to do research and find good sources about the topic. Thanks. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Wbm1058. The whole Google story project has gone through so many re-titlings, redirects and page moves, it's a challenge to follow what has happened. I'm heading out right now but I will try to contact the instructor later today. Thanks for the suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm back at my computer, Wbm1058. I looked over the instructor's (Jaobar) edits and they seem to be on top of the class situation. I just hope all of the talk pages messages we left the editor weren't too confusing! Often the best advice to give a new editor who is doing lots of article creation and page moves is simply, Slow down! Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wbm1058 and User:Liz, thank you for looking into the situation so quickly (and so politely). My students are supposed to only be working in their sandboxes. I have addressed the majority of instances where this instruction was not followed. I've been doing this sorta thing in class since 2011, so I'm used to addressing these sorts of issues. Thanks again for your help and your patience. Sincerely --Jaobar (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The editor working on the Google article had several pages deleted, Jaobar, let me know if they would like to recover the content. If they are upset at the deletion, we can put it in their sandbox but, honestly, sometimes it's better to start from scratch. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we're good to go User:Liz. I'll let you know if I hear any complaints. --Jaobar (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What anti-semitism?

Including facts about Freud's opinion that Jews are suprerior to other people is not anti-semitism. It is explicitly POV for you to delete something just because you don't like it even if it is true.VivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter

Hi Liz, Just a wee heads up that I've added in some (Redacted) tags in place of the information removed from this Talk page. The comments were responded to by a few editors, so it may not make sense to readers to simply have the whole of the comment removed.
Please let me know if this causes any issues. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryk72. I'm not experienced at rev'deletions. I was contacted by email by an editor who argued those statements were BLP violations. But I don't want to interrupt the flow of the conversation. I appreciate your help. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup...

here and elsewhere. I really hope I myself use spellcheck in this case and review my own comments a bit more than I usually do, to maybe reduce your workload a little. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You're really not supposed to edit other editor's comments, even to correct a mistake. But I was making other edits to the page. I hope Dennis doesn't mind. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Formal closures

Hello. You recently posted to Who_should_do_formal_closures ANI. I tink that I'm being mistreated because I'm an ip and I really can't do anything about it since some admins are mistrating me.

I think I explained quite well what happened in the ANI. An user who clearly supports one side came and had closed the request. Now he is closing the ANI. I would value your opinion since you participated there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.227.5.127 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC) My ip was blocked in such a way I can't even appeal? What's the deal with that? Can admins do that? I'm being accused and blocked without a single complaint about my behavior and without a single report. I feel that's highly discriminatory. Random users pop out of nowhere and they all share the same opinion. I don't know who Asdisis is but I can't believe all those who said his name have participated in discussions with him. I looked at their contributions and hardly any of them has. How come they are all mentioning him. I feel that something doesn't add up here, and the best way is to look at what those users have done out of the edit request on Novak Djokovic's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.227.5.127 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are Asdisis, you should log into that account and make an appeal to your block, you should not be socking. If you are not Asdisis, it would behoove you to create an account. It is incredibly difficult for regular editors to converse with an IP account because your IP might change and you don't have a stable identity. This is one reason why IPs are sometimes assumed to be blocked editors who are evading their block. Think about it when your block is over. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I always thought a report and investigation is needed for someone to be a sock. That's why I ignored empty accusations, but this is getting out of hand. I can't even appeal because an admin blocks me even from appealing. I also though that no one can be blocked as a sock if he doesn't exhibit any misconduct. Could you go trought that case on Ani and share your oppinion?212.15.178.72 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I used to think that an SPI was required to block a suspected sock account but it is not. Some admins block accounts based on the Duck test...if an account looks like a sockpuppet and acts like a sockpuppet, it is probably a sockpuppet.
It is almost impossible to lift a block when you keep hopping from one IP to another. If you have a registered account, please read Wikipedia:Appealing a block for guidance. If you have a registered account and can not edit your talk page, file an unblock ticket request...see Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 11:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
But that is giving them right to block anyone, no questions asked. Appeal can be rejected by simply stating "DUCK" even if the person in question doesn't have any similarity. I feel that if I make an account I will be blocked again in the same manner, and I won't be able to appeal because they will just say Duck. I was under impression that a misconduct has to be present, because if it's not present than the original User under block can be unblocked anyway.It's funny. if Asdisis came and admit he was me he could be unblocked because of my good behavior, but I can't because I can't go to his account. O think the real question is, why did those users suspect I'm him. He is characterized with disruptive behavior, I bare no resemblance. Lastly, I'm the least important here. Even if I were a sock, admins are neglecting the things said in the ANI and the thing that some users are trying to prevent a RS enters the article. What do you think of the ANI and the events I described there. The ANI is not about me and regardless of me, those things had happened. Admins shouln't neglect those things and they should determine if there was misconduct of the other side. I still think that a formal request can't be closed by a tottaly random editor who had come to close the discussion not to asses the consensus but because he supported one side.212.15.177.70 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to note that you are maybe under the wrong impression that I participate only in this discussion where I'm marked as a sock. Here's what's actually happening. At the moment I participate in 5-6 discussions and no one is accusing me of being a sock, except one user. He followed me to few other discussions trough my contributions, one of them being Novak Djokovic. Here are my discussions [10]. You can see that no other editor participating in them had not accused me of any misconduct and called me a sock. In fact I opened 2 RfC's recently. More than 10 editors participated and they all accepted my suggestion. One RfC was formally closed in my favor. Only this one editor is accusing me of being a sock and he knows this admin HighInBc. You can see on his talk page offering the right to that user to protect any page for him (I suppose the right to block anyone goes with it). Maybe you aren't aware but I was the one who reported that admin and you also shared concerns about my ip changing in that report. I really hadn't any problems until I started discussing with Fkp on Serbs of Croatia. He there tried to block me immediately. Just check the history. I think I posted one or two posts and he immediately said I'm a sock and erased my posts. Well all that finished with a RfC that I started and a formal closure in my favor. That user followed me then to every of other 5 discussions i had. Anywhere he appears people start to accuse me of being a sock. It's amazing of how many people know Asdisis and I can't believe that is a coincidence that where he appears the accusations start to appear. It seems to me he and his friends have found a pretty clever way to block any ip or a new user that they like. I'm not the only one.

I really think this case is very straight forward and that it proves I'm being mistreated and when someone objective would read the case that they would agree. It's not even about me, but about a RS. I firstly think that there is a clear example of bad faith to reject a RS because of the someone who posted it.

I would like to ask you. Does that situation what happened with that closure when another editor who disagreed with the request closed it in his favor instead of participating the discussion and bring sources, even if I were to be a sock? Me being a sock wouldn't make that right. What now prevents that editor to do it all the time to less experienced editors and ip's? I feel that is highly against the rules. Even if I hadn't open a formal request it should be closed by an impartial editor and not the someone who clearly supports one side and who had closed it because he disagreed with it. 89.164.181.92 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


I would also like to ask your opinion about the thing you had understanding for. ISP change IP's constantly. Some more often than the others. When the router restarts an IP is changed. Mobile ISP change IP's even more frequently. When mobile data is turned off and on again IP is almost certainly changed. I think that Wikipedia's editors do not understand that and that they see IP changing as a misconduct. I searched and I didn't find and I don't believe Wikipedia lists ip changing as a misconduct. Look at this. Banned editors can use ip changing to sock. They can also create a new account to sock. If ip changes are the reason to say someone is a sock that creating an account says that also. So now everyone are socks. You are suggesting I create an account. Wouldn't be easier for me to create an account if I were to be a sock? Wouldn't be easier to find a proxy with a constant IP that doesn't change? I would like to start a debate on Wikipedia regarding this, so admins are aware that ip changes are not a misconduct. 89.164.181.92 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I appealed for a block on that first ip in this discussion and look at the explanation "You're IP hopping to skirt your block, which is against policy. You cannot edit via any account or IP while you have an active block in place.". Where does he get "IP hopping to skirt block"? I had to change my ip because that other admin had not only block the ip from outside editing but from editing my talk page. I had no way to appeal. I hardly managed to appeal on this ip before I was banned from editing my talk page? How come no other editors in that discussions had any complaint about me? Would you like to go trough that discussion on Djokovic's page to see what happened. At this point I have no one to turn around and I would like someone objective to listen and not to assume I'm a sock and then to disregard valid argument's on the fact who they think who I am. 89.164.181.92 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't begin to address all of the questions in your long comments. Regarding IP hopping and socking, there are special clerks and admins who address these cases on a daily basis who are familiar with the guidelines regarding policy. Please raise your questions (brief questions, not long paragraphs) at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations and you will get more informed responses than I can provide.
Regarding IP and editor identity, like I said, it is almost impossible to have a discussion with an IP editor whose IP number keeps changing. I don't know if I'm talking to the same person so each time your number changes, you have to explain again who you are and trust that the other editor will believe you. Also, if you had a registered account, I could "ping" you and you would get a notification that I responded to your message which doesn't happen when you are an IP.
Think of it this way...I'm Liz and when I went through an RfA, editors could go through my contributions and judge me based on my (Liz's) edits. I have a stable identity so other editors can see where I have stood on issues, positions I've taken, responses I have given to people on my talk page. When you have an account number which is constantly changing, people don't know who you are, have no idea of your past (because your contributions could be from a different editor who was assigned the IP number at a different time) and so there is less trust because editors don't have your track record to judge you on. And while it is perfectly valid to edit anonymously, there will be some editors who assume that some IP editors are socking and trying to hide their identity...even if you are innocent, there will still be those who are suspicious.
It's a choice you have to make and neither you nor I can change the culture of Wikipedia. We can like it or hate it, but it is the sum total of interactions editors have on the project, something than no individual has control over. Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Those are all good arguments. I will consider doing that, but not for the discussions where I'm already involved. What about the ANI? The case of improper closure still stands open. The editor closed the request because he supported one side. Then he came to ANI and close the ANI where I complain about him closing the formal request. People can't just go around and close things because they don't agree with it. It seems to me that the discussion is now being closed although I'm not the only one who participated and agreed. One established user also agreed and other who objected initially didn't agree went to make the edit himself. The fact still remains that this is the only source and no sources that oppose it. I wouldn't want to accuse someone because they are Serbian, but their objections look to me as emotional. If for instance you or any other user tried to enter that source to the article I have no doubt you would face a similar thing that happened to me, people would object with invalid arguments like "it's Croatian propaganda"... . That is way I would like to open a RfC there so sources can be discussed and not bans and accusations of "Croatian propaganda". Or at least for that closure request to be closed by some established user not involved and who doesn't support one side.212.15.179.172 (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So I guess nothing will become of this? Some users managed to deny a RS enters the article with personal attacks against me. The closure was done by an user who favored one side. The user who eventually got to close it at first agreed it should be reviewed and then he backed down. I find that's not a way to edit wikipedia. I'm not the one that's important here and some others who are denying a RS really show their own attitude towards editing. It's not about RS and objectivity but about preventing "Croatian, Serbian Norwegian" or whichever propaganda from entering the article. I also feel that some admins do not see that misconduct of one side doesn't mean that the other side is perfectly right. 141.136.246.240 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

First, I still don't know who you are and if these messages are all from the same person. I can't even "ping" you to let you know I have replied because you haven't registered a Wikipedia account.
Second, I can barely understand all of the information you have posted on my talk page, which is lengthy. Going through all of the article talk pages and noticeboard discussions you are asking me to not only read but form an opinion on, on a subject I know nothing about, is a big demand to make of me. My time on Wikipedia is limited, I have responsibilities as an arbitration clerk and admin, and I am ill-equipped to devote the amount of attention you are asking of me. If I knew anything about the subject (Serbians in Croatia?) and was able to comprehend and navigate through the enormous tangle of motivations and tension between editors that are characteristics of many articles on Eastern European subjects, I might have been persuaded to do so. But I'm not willing to spend the dozens of hours it will take to get me up to speed to address your displeasure with the way a discussion was closed.
I recommend approaching an administrator who has edited in this general topic area and perhaps they can accommodate you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You posted in the ANI and that's why I contacted you and the other editor who posted there. I would like the ANI get resolved. Even in the worst case (that I am a sock, and I'm not) the report in the ANI is still a thing that had happened. A thing that is against Wikipedia's rules regardless of who brought it to the ANI. You are not familiar with the history of this, and I don't want to bother you, but all this sock accusations originated from one user who has an admin on his side. An user who's disruptive behavior was backed up by this admin. That user is being reported now, and it seems he is going to be banned. The history of this includes my request to implement the consensus established in the RfC into article and that admin's request to other admin to reject my request. [11]. I have a strong feeling there's some kind of place where admins can talk where this admin was telling other admins that I'm a sock. Because random admins pop up telling me I'm a sock. How can they all know something that isn't true, and even if it is true, how could they still know that? Not to bother you with history of this. I would like that the ANI report is treated in the normal way , and not to let people that had a misconduct to get away with than by personal accusations against the person who made the report. That can't be their excuse. 141.138.44.84 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oct 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday October 28, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

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

This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project!

We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, to see if the chapter is able to fiscally sponsor more ongoing projects tied to our core mission of expanding and diversifying free knowledge.

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

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

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

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:

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

BTW, I'm not sure, but this one might be more convenient to you: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aphra Behn Society Editathon.--Pharos (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
On that Friday as part of the same conference, there is also a session on 'Feminist Interventions – Workshop on Using Wikipedia in the Classroom', if you're interested in that.--Pharos (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Pharos, and for all of the work you've done over the years to coordinate meetups, conferences and other gatherings. I wanted to go to WikiConference this month but didn't get my plans together in time. I hope you found it an inspiring conference. I know I really enjoyed last year's. Let's bring it back to NYC! Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't received it yet, SwisterTwister but I'll keep an eye out for it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Still haven't received your mail, SwisterTwister, and I've gotten other Wikipedia mail. You might try again or use my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that's interesting, I'll start again and should be there soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really making an effort here. Please look at my edit history.

I know the Rape On Campus article is contentious, but I swear I am not trying to stir up trouble. Please look at my edits Liz, I am really trying hard here. Cavalierman (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You went back to one of the two subjects that I thought you were going to stay away from. There are nearly 5 million articles on Wikipedia, are there no other subjects in the known universe which you have an interest in? Sports? Academic interests? Hobbies? History? Film? Popular culture? The possibilities are almost endless.
I was trying to give you some advice but you went ahead and acted the same way before you asked for a second chance. But you weren't asking me for a second chance, you asked MarkBernstein so I'm officially out of this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
WAIT - PLEASE I am trying to do the right thing. I will not edit the ROC article anymore. Please Have a little faith Liz. I am not a troublemaker if you give me a chance to prove it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2150:7400:E0A1:1580:7DB4:730C (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sticking up for the Teahouse gang

Thanks for sticking up for the Teahouse gang. The Teahouse is usually covered by some very bright and helpful Wikipedians.

However, I have noticed that the majority of replies are stern, with lots of rulebook waving, and admonishments not to do anything wrong.

Frequently, pleas for help that requires the helper to get under the hood fall on deaf ears. There are a couple of helpers that bend over backwards, and even write custom code to fix problems, or go to a page and dig in. The majority seem to skim the problem, and then flip it all back on the asker.

The Teahouse seems like a place set up to receive inquiries from plebes, but they are not always treated like plebes. There is a lot of polite, dry scolding.

One helper states that the plebes should strive to write their articles at a level to be understood by a bright High School student. Personally, I think the bar should be a bright middle-schooler. The average American has a 6th grade intelligence capacity.

For me, going to the Teahouse makes me feel like a dummy for asking, and going to the Village Pump makes me feel like my question is beneath their tremendous brainpower.

I take on a question at the Teahouse sometimes and then get some snark about the imperfection of my answer. I'd rather my answers were supplemented rather than badrapped.

I would like to be pinged when there are questions in the queue, but the only way I know about them is to scroll my Watchlist (where it can only list the latest entry) or subscribe to all alerts by email (which snows my email inbox). I'd like to be able to subscribe to pages individually with alerts coming to my notification badges instead of to my email inbox.

Wikipedia must have been a spooky place before the Teahouse. I like the way every asker is welcomed and pinged. But then, it can degrade depending on who's on the con.

OK, that's it for now. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'm just seeing your message today, unfortunately. I have linked to your comment to Jim Cullen who can really set the tone for the Teahouse, because I think it's important for others to hear about editor's good and bad experiences.
Yes, before the Teahouse, there was just the Help Desk and learning to edit Wikipedia could be a chilly and difficult process (and it still isn't always easy). Wikipedia, as a project, realized that to continue, there has to be a constant influx of new editors (since, every year, editors retire), so the Teahouse was created out of a discussion on how Wikipedia could be more welcoming. For good or ill, anyone who wants to respond to questions at the Teahouse can, unless they are really doing a terrible job, and so the response you get to your inquiries can vary depending on the knowledge and experience of the editor replying to you. But there are some editors who regularly drop by the Teahouse who have been editing for many years so hopefully, you'll get the help you need.
You might also find, as you spend more time on Wikipedia, you will come across an editor or two who you could approach with questions. I also recommend looking into WikiProjects, there are hundreds on every subject under the sun so if you are interested in Film, Medicine or Baseball, there are editors who are working in these areas you can discuss things with. Just a suggestion, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #181

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

What is your opinion of this?

Hello (username),

Thank you for answering questions at the Teahouse. Please remember that the Teahouse is supposed to be a "A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships." You can read some of the underlying research behind the Teahouse concept here. Please remember that all Teahouse hosts are expected to "welcome guests in the Q&A board" and "speak to others in a friendly and patient way". Let's all try to work together to make the Teahouse an even more welcoming place. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's great, Cullen328, I forgot this statement and we should be reminded of it regularly: I promise to: Remain in good standing on Wikipedia, welcome guests in the Q&A board, speak to others in a friendly and patient way, and generally uphold the methods of the Teahouse.
I also like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations which I don't recall seeing before. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5

Newsletter • October 2015

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

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter

September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!

The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!

Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, Warrior Princess

Hey. I saw that you whacked an SPA vandalism account earlier. Here's another one that may be getting ripe for action, and who has been very naughty today: [12]. I hope you enjoy playing Whack-a-mole. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still getting used to being an admin and only block the most egregious examples of vandalism or disruptive editing which this account was guilty of, Dirtlawyer1. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
". . . only block the most egregious examples of vandalism or disruptive editing . . ." A philosophy with which I am in full accord. That said, sometimes you need to draw your magic administrator sword of power and smite the egregious evil-doers. Whack! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. But if a page is mistakenly deleted, it is always possible to restore it, the edits are still in the page record. But if an editor who is seen as a bad element is actually just inept, they are likely to never return and contribute once the block is over. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
True, true and true. But it's kind of hard for me to engage my suspension of disbelief and accept that someone who substitutes "fatty hot dog doo" for an article subject's name is merely "inept." Could be, but it would be a very low percentage bet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

note:

I disagree with your choice to do this. — Ched :  ?  14:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there will be editors who object, Ched. All I can say is that the issue of hatting this editor's remarks was raised on the arbitration clerks email list and I was implementing an action. Given the concerns about aspersions cast in several statements, I think there will be more redactions and hatting that will happen over the next day or two. Liz Read! Talk! 14:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely response. Regards. — Ched :  ?  14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Just saw this thread... Liz, I undid this hatting because it is very ironic to censor somebody who is complaining about censorship and that it is best not to add fuel to the fire at this point. I did check your userpage to see if you are an arbitration clerk. I haven't been following things lately. Could you perhaps add a note if in fact you are an arbitration clerk? Had I seen that I probably wouldn't have reversed you. Sorry. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Jehochman, I've been an arbitration clerk since March 27, 2015. I do have an arbitration clerk userbox on my user page but I don't have a narrative statement about being a clerk and an administrator. Clerks are asked to hat comments which go off-topic or which cast aspersions on editors. It's not considered censorship and we are often criticized for not being more proactive about it. With this case, there will be more hatting. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
As a first step, I favor asking people to remove problematic content before doing so oneself. If a user understands what's wrong and agrees to remove, then they learn something and don't repeat. Just a thought... A bit of polemic isn't very problematic. If there are personal attacks, I agree that's more serious and should be dealt with more strictly. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Given your current involvement in ongoing discussions (e.g. [13]), it would be preferable if you recuse and let another clerk handle these duties. Please see also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Case_request_management. Also best to indicate "clerk action" in edit summaries when doing clerking actions. NE Ent 00:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, all women who have the least bit of social awareness or can possibly considered to be a feminist should recuse themselves. I've seen this oblivious pressuring so many times on GW's page and have kept my 'mouth shut', but this is just too much. The condescending nature of your request is disgusting. Dave Dial (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that a comment about inequity and societal privilege disqualifies me from sending notices about statement length and closing a phase of a case when the deadline comes. If all clerks who had an opinion about gender were to recuse themselves, there would be no clerks (and no arbitrators) left to administer this case. You do realize that "gender" is not a code word for female. Every person has a gender. At least one, that is. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Request

As I'm not familiar with clerking protocol, and I started the discussion here; I do have a request. You implied that further actions would be taken to improve the verbiage of the page. Given that your stated intent is to remain active in this case, and in fairness to all sides involved - could you please take this section to the mailing list for review. I ask that consideration be given to aforementioned "aspersions" and "soapboxing". Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, — Ched :  ?  03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ched, I'm sorry that I didn't notice your comment earlier today. In the case of the hatting, this particular remark was identified as being problematic and the suggestion was made to hat it. The clerks are aware that there are statements included in the case request which cast aspersions and need to be redacted. I can not speak for the clerks team but we are on the verge of opening this case as soon as the go-ahead is given by the arbitration committee. It's my impression that when the statements are copied over from the case request to the case itself, the offending portions will be redacted.
I encourage you, in the future, to send in a message to <clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org> with your concerns so that all clerks are aware of them. While we carry out actions as independent editors, we are usually acting in response to requests from the arbitrators or the clerk team. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Are emails to the clerk team acknowledged? I sent an email the the clerks list about this case earlier this week, and received only the automatic "moderation" message. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No, emails to the clerks list or the arbitrators list are not always acknowledged. I can confirm to you that the message was received, circulated and most probably read by the entire team. Given the number of open cases, case requests, motions and the like, and having three new trainees and two inactive experienced clerks, we are spread a little thin right now. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Liz - no worries. Let me get back to you later .. I lost a very dear friend of 50 years .. and I'm having a very hard time being rational. — Ched :  ?  03:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You have my sympathy, Ched. Earlier this month, I lost a friend I've known since 1979. We had fallen out of touch recently, unfortunately. It still hurts though to know he's no longer around, being his sarcastic self. Liz Read! Talk! 18:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you said...

this. Granted your RfA may have been problematic for whatever silly reason, but you are level-headed enough and rational enough to be at least a good candidate.

And former clerks tend to do better in elections too. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, John, a) my RfA was divisive and I barely passed, b) I've only been a practicing admin for about 3 months and, most importantly, c) as a clerk, I can see how hard the arbitrators work and how challenging it is to come to agreement with such a large group (over a dozen) members spread out over many time zones.
It's a time-consuming, rather thankless responsibility and just becoming an arbitrator makes one a target for types who are anti-authority. So, if I ever ran, it would have to be at a time when I could devote time to it. I was looking at the history of the committee and I don't think there has been a term without one or more retiring early. People get elected and find out that it might not be the most rewarding experience. That's been my impression. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerkin', clerkin'

Hi Liz, I noticed the massive number of notices around the recent ArbCom case name change that you've sent, and am guessing that they're delivered by hand, rather than a bulk mailout; and wanted to express gratitude on behalf of the community for the work you're doing as an ArbCom clerk. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, thanks. I have access to the mass mailing tool but I prefer to post messages manually as there was a mistake in the template message of the original message that was sent out. At least there is a master notification list which makes the job simpler. Liz Read! Talk! 13:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2

Hi Liz, I see you're a clerk in this case. There's a big banner at the top of this page that's wrong (in this particular case), saying "Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop." - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Dank, I'll check it out. We tend to rely on standard templates and this one is being handled a little differently. Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, understood, just a suggestion. Keep on clerkin'. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Danke, Dank. Liz Read! Talk! 17:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Business Casual (netlabel)

Hi. I saw this at WP:REFUND showing a redlink although the message said it had been restored. This deletion log showed that Tokyogirl restored it at 09:58 and you re-deleted it at 11:16. So I supposed she had forgotten to remove the db-g13 tag, which is easy to do; but when I re-restored it there was no db tag there. Now I am confused, and just checking in case you had some particular reason for re-deleting (in which case, by all means re-re-delete!) Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD:, from what I can see from the restored Draft:Business Casual (netlabel), it is still marked in the G13 category (see the This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13 note at the top). Any admin going through the G13 eligible category today could delete this as it now stands. You either need to make an edit to the page to reset the clock or add {{AFC postpone G13}} to ensure that it is removed from the G13 category. I don't know whether Tokyogirl was aware of this when she restored the article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not aware that the db-g13 needs to be placed on a draft article, it just appears as a G13 eligible page if it hasn't been edited in 6 months without any additional tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Something new is going on. I am a bit of a regular at REFUND and, before today, pages I restored have always (as far as I recall) had a db tag at the top. I have just checked back on all my restorations for the past two weeks and found one other, from today, which had that "eligible for G13" notice. A null edit serves to reset the clock, but that is something to watch out for when restoring.
When you deleted this page, did you find it in CAT:CSD? I thought the system was that the "Eligible for G13" flag did not immediately put the page in a deletion queue; either Hasteurbot or a human editor added a db-g13 tag later, after an interval to notify the author. I will find out what's going on, and warn the other REFUND regulars. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
JohnCD, I regularly check Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and, I'll admit, I thought it was a bot that tagged the drafts after six months of inactivity. I didn't think that an editor went through the hundreds of submissions and drafts and put a db tag on them. But for the right answer, I'd go to the experts and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation to find out how drafts get tagged as G13s. I'd appreciate it if you let me know what the answer is! Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, humans do some but Hasteurbot does a lot of them, but what it does is add a db-g13 tag, like this. I didn't think eligible pages appeared in CAT:CSD until that tag had been applied; and since it is an edit, it turns off the "untouched for six months" flag. I will check up and let you know. Do you remember where you found the Business Casual page as needing deletion? Was it in CAT:CSD? Same question for Draft:Waterstart, th other one I found today, which had also never had a db-g13 tag. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I know that the category fills up in waves...there will only be a half-dozen drafts in the category and then, this week, I believe there were 1400 drafts. Like I said, I just go to Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and delete the drafts that are listed there. If they look promising, I will G13 Postpone them. I often check the editing history to make sure that it's been six months since the last edit and see who the principle author is. But when I am manually deleting 40 or 50 drafts in the morning, I can't say that I check them all. I'm amazed that we've gotten it down from 1400 to 800 in the past week! Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I'm not familiar with that end of the process, but I don't think you're supposed to delete them straight out of that category. Hasteurbot has some process like: notify the author, wait n days, then tag with G13. I know there was a lot of discussion about it when G13 was set up, but I'm not sure where to find that. I'll dig about, and ask at WT:AFC, but not till tomorrow, it's late here. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't understand

Re I don't think it's anyone's business. Not following what you're saying there? It only displays what a user chooses to select in their preferences, the default is unspecified, which renders as "he/she" (which I hate, being a proponent and user of singular they, myself.) NE Ent 02:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC) ... in any event, as "gender" is a magic word embedded in the software, it's beyond the scope of English Wikpedia, as WMF controls the software. NE Ent 22:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That editor had been trolling, been blocked twice in two days, in part for going to different user talk pages, saying that Gamaliel is female (and he isn't), including saying on Gamliel's talk page, As a female Admin who is obsessed with her own gender you shouldn't be involved in the Gamergate article. You are clearly far too biased and obviously you don't care that you are biased. I guess you are "saving the world" from evil men right? Get a life.. I was surprised that you would be helping them discover an editor's gender when they had only made problematic, and no productive, edits. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I know (you're surprised), and that makes me sad. What better way to prevent similar mistakes in the future (saying that Gamaliel is female) than educating them? Why not AGF a bit? We're not supposed to a battleground, and it's not a zero sum game, my answering a simple question is not an endorsement of disruptive editing. Educating and treating folks with respect -- not just when they're behaving well but especially when they're not -- often pays off in the long run. Ya'll blocked an IP, I engaged (and respectfully educated) a person. NE Ent 00:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

5,000,000 and redirects

Redirects aren't counted, but because they're in article-space a lot of people don't realise that. In the run-up to all the other million-marks, we had a flood of ultra-short stubs created from directory entries, like Grevillea evansiana and Liman, Hopa, and I suspect we'll see the same again, because people think they're going to get some kind of award for it.

In practice, the ebb-and-flow of deletion and creation means there's no "millionth article" as such, and the WMF's PR department picks a decent-quality but not intimidatingly complicated recent creation which they feel sends the best signal to whoever is the particular group of new editors they're currently trying to attract—the last four were Ezbet el-Borg (4M), Beate Eriksen (3M), El Hormiguero (2M) and Jordanhill railway station (1M), by which you can pretty much track the WMFs priorities over the last decade. (I'll make a fairly confident bet that the official 5 millionth article will be either a biography of a female scientist, or a well-written and neutral article on either India or sub-Saharan Africa.) ‑ iridescent 10:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, iridescent. I didn't think the Wikipedia tracking system was fine-tuned enough to actually know what the nth million article was. I'm sure that artices are numbered but plenty of articles get created that later get deleted or merged, so a raw article ID number would only say how many articles had been created, not how many currently exist in the project. But I'm sure that someone will be checking the numbers every couple of hours as we get closer to 5 million and have a general idea of the closest 100 or so articles around the time period where the threshold was crossed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
If past history is anything to go by, they'll choose a bunch of articles which were created around the right time and announce one of them as the winner, and the other as "nearly". The {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} magic word isn't a great deal of use—if it updates to 5,000,000 and ten seconds after that an admin cleans out CAT:EX and deletes 200 articles, is the magic number reached the first or the second time the count reaches the right number? ‑ iridescent 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
There’s a tracking table based on daily samples (much too coarse to pinpoint an article, of course) and a micro-pool at the Math RD.—Odysseus1479 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As an addendum, take a look at this as an example of the kind of problem these "races towards a number" cause; each of these creations now has a reasonable chance of appearing in Special:Random, and thus give new editors the idea that this is what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like. Plus, of course, all this floods Special:NewPages, making it infinitely easier for spammers and vandals to slip their efforts through undetected. ‑ iridescent 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I must admit, this kind of rote creation of mini-stubs of one sentence each drive me a little crazy. I remember last year, there was a long-time editor creating an article on every single village in Iran, many of which had a population of 20 or fewer people. And here we have published, respected academics who don't rate an article! Liz Read! Talk! 12:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's alot of stubs coming through. In recent months I've done more speedy deletions as it is something I can do while on a smartphone (unlike editing) - there is a steady stream of speedies and prods but not as much as one would think. Feels like maybe 100 speedies every 24-48 hours and a dozen prods over the same period. I might be way off on that though. One reason why I started up the Stub Contest, though that ain't perfect either. BTW Liz I am very happy that you've proven me wrong WRT me opposing your RfA and well done on an uneventful path to date. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, Cas Liber, I would like to have the confidence to write articles from scratch but I've seen so many deletions (I've done 1400 at this point) that when an experienced editor says, "It's not hard to whip up a few GA articles", I just think, "It's not hard for you!" It's more often that I see efforts that fail than succeed.
As for my adminship, I'm really a bookkeeper/librarian at heart and like keeping things in order, handling backlogs, trying to deescalate situations unless we are talking about an obvious troll or editor being disruptive. I don't see myself as controversial so the RfA comments were a surprise. I'll plug away, trying to get work done, uneventfully. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Liz, to date I have 15 GAs to my credit, but I "created" none of those articles. The article content of those GAs, on the other hand, is 50 to 95% my handiwork. The subjects are all clearly notable. There is nothing that says you have to create the stub/article from which your first Good Article grows. Personally, I like finding a stubby or poorly written article about a subject in which I'm interested, and then re-writing and expanding it into a well-sourced and well-written encyclopedia article. Most gratifying thing you can do around here. Anytime you want to run an article subject by me, just want a little nudge in getting started, or even want to split the effort to improve an article to GA in which you're interested, feel free to ping me. I'm happy to help, including interesting subjects outside my usual purview. You don't have to fly solo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Dirtlawyer1. It seems to always come back to having substantial reliable sources to base your writing upon. Right now, my personal library is boxed up and I'm leery of online sources of information on subjects that are not biographies or subjects in the news. But there are probably solid sources of information that are available that I'm not aware of.
I've seen several prolific editors state that it's easier for them to work on subjects that lie out their professional area of interest so maybe I should be looking outside my past academic discipline. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The only time I've ever contributed to law-related articles is when one of the principal writers/editors requested my input. Writing about my professional interests seems too much like work to me. I've written and presented CLE materials and taught classes within my practice areas, but Wikipedia is a hobby and a creative outlet for me, and it still remains mostly fun, not work. BTW, depending on your subject, you can find a remarkable amount of newspaper archive as well as scholarly material online, either directly or through one of the online services for which we can get free access like Newspapers.com or JSTOR. For popular sports bios, I rely almost entirely on archived newspaper articles. For university professors as subjects, I have made the trek to the local university libraries when I've exhausted online materials, and even requested some from the university historian. Research can be fun when you enjoy your subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_14&oldid=1143896754"