User talk:Liz/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Please look at my apologies here. I will never do it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floquenbeam#Sorry_for_everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin?

I feel like you should run for being an admin if you aren't already, you do a good job here on wiki handling editors while keeping calm =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very flattering to say, Knowledgekid87, I appreciate your kind words. However, most of my editing has been gnomish work or work in categories, not content creation. I'm more of an organizer. It's difficult if not impossible to pass an RfA without some substantial contribution to articles and I don't see that activity in the immediate future. It could happen though, you never know! Again, my thanks and have a good weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay and thanks you too! =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey did you go to Rutgers? 166.170.35.45 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I've gone to several of their campuses for meetings/conferences but I was never a student there nor did I ever teach there. Are you from Rutgers? Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There were a couple missed dates

usually because the publication of the Signpost clashed with the release of Andrew's data. Serendipodous 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

But, Serendipodous, can you confirm that you didn't publish Traffic Reports regularly until June 2013? I'm just trying to make sure the Signpost archives are complete and I haven't missed any pages. Since very few of the Signpost articles were categorized (none except those featuring different WikiProjects), the only way to know that articles exist are the contents list of each issue or to search for an article by guessing its possible title. There is no judgment here, I just want to make sure I'm not missing any Traffic reports in the first half of 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 12:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a sneak preview on 29 April, and then it became a weekly feature in June. Serendipodous 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Serendipodous, that is exactly what I needed to know! Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #156

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

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in March 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

All Natural Glamour Solos

Is there a reason why you did this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't feel like the image enhanced the article. I was being bold. Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for defending me on my ANI reporting of a particular individual. At least I'm not the only one who thought it was not acceptable.  — Calvin999 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:Calvin999, the comments were incivil and rude but, unfortunately, brusque behavior is very common online although people are generally more polite on Wikipedia than they are in article comments sections or in the message board world. Part of the bruqueness comes from the fact that these interactions are not face-to-face and also it is due to differing levels of experience editing on the project. Editors who have been here 8 or 10 years have seen it all and are often quite direct and do not believe in pleasantries. If you are interested in more collaborative editing, I recommend finding a WikiProject on a subject that interests you. You are more likely to find like minded people if you have a common interest, there are hundreds of WikiProjects, and it can be very fulfilling to work together on bringing up the quality of an article about something you find interesting. You've been here a while so you might be familiar with them but I just thought I'd mention them because I know they've really helped people find their niche to work in on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been on here myself for over 5 years and made a lot of contributions. I just thought the the way I was spoken to was out of order and not necessary at all.  — Calvin999 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize you had been editing here that long. My apologies! Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol, that's fine! I don't think some of the others did either.  — Calvin999 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Malta

Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2015

Hi Liz, for the latest update, see m:Talk:WikiConference USA#Columbus Day Weekend possibility. We should have more to share soon!--Pharos (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Pharos! I know it is a lot of work to put these events together but I enjoyed the 2014 event so much, I was hoping that it would be an annual event, or, at least, biannual. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Definitely it will be an annual event, just maybe in fall instead of summer :)--Pharos (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #157

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

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

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

This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.

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

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

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

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Word counts

Hi, Liz. Using that word-count tool you shared,[1] I get that Karanacs' word count (not counting the statement that was copied over from the RFAR) is 999, and that my word count (not counting my RFAR statement) is 1948. Roger told me yesterday that I can have 2000 words.[2]

Can we get straight on this? If we're counting the RFAR statements that were moved over, I think both Karanacs (720+999=1719) and I (698+1948=2596) are over our word-count limit. Otherwise, I think we're OK. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lightbreather, I followed the clerks' procedures on evidence length that says to user a word counter and "simply copy and paste the entire statement, excluding the final signature, into the text box there." I checked with the arbitrators on the clerks-l list and they said this was correct.
I didn't include the archived case request statement. I used http://wordcounter.net to determine word count but I'll try again with http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml which is the tool listed for the clerks procedures. I didn't see where Roger said you could have 2,000 but I'll check the evidence talk page. There seems to be a bit of a cushion in this case about strict evidence length limits but they are goals to aim for. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather, I had copied the text using the Edit feature and this gives a different word count from copying and pasting from the regular page. I've adjusted yours accordingly and I'll ask @L235: to double-check my totals. Sorry for the mix-up. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Everything currently checks out. You're both good to go :). By the way, Liz, in the future, when quoting the clerks' procedure or any other policy, or indeed any comment, I find it useful to use the {{tq}} template. It makes it clearly stand out as a quote but not intrusively, and it's always clear where the quote starts and ends. For example, {{tq|test}} yields test. Hope that helped. Thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, L235. I appreciate it. Still learning the ropes. I do usually use {{tq|test}} when I'm quoting a talk page comment but I haven't had to really quote policy pages often. I'll do that in the future. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Raab AfD

Hi LIZ! Thank you for your comment on the AfD. I have a question. The mention of Andreas' comments about 9/11 are very fondly remembered by a very large smalltalk community. Would you vote to keep if that was left in or should that go too? I'm happy to remove the other eulegies. I was trying to show that Andreas was notable to very important people, as indeed he was. He was, for many years, in a group of 4 outstanding developers that did incredible work. Work that continues today and will, in my opinion, make major changes to how we program systems in the future. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Itsmeront (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Itsmeront, if you look at profiles of other academics or computer programmers, they don't have sentimental tributes included in them. I'm not saying Raab wasn't a wonderful person and an inspiring teacher, it's just that this content doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic entry. What I'm trying to say is that your chances of winning over a "Keep" decision is increased if you remove it. If you really find this difficult, you can try to include the text as a footnote or textual note but not in the main body of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz! I appreciate the advice. Thank you for your help. I've removed the Eulogies. Itsmeront (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz! If you have a chance could you review the article again? I have tried to add more reliable third-party sources. Thanks! Itsmeront (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A question regarding some policies.

Ello Liz, been a while, sorry for barging in with a question but you are one of the one that I have good faith in with a question.

As I have been canvassing before as stated and the "forum" policy goes against the talk page where things can be brought up. As such I wonder if it's allowed to use forum lines/threads to bring up a perspective from tertiary sources which are not articles to inject some view that may help articles. and since I got canvas warning due to the action, what options do I have to bring up discussions from outside sources of people that do have an interest in article but are not enabled to write in the talk pages? Such as forums/Threads of where the article is being critized/opiniated?

Thanks for an answer (If there is one.)TheRealVordox (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing is frowned on, TheRealVordox, and I'm not sure what you mean by "forum lines". Are you talking about noticeboards or talk pages? Wikipedia doesn't have forums, like a message board has. Can you be specific about what you are trying to argue for/against and what sources you want to use to present your case? Liz Read! Talk! 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically and bluntly, certain threads in any tertiary forums/blogposts/etc that speak about articles (Even if they have a bias in the thread or article but gives a perspective worth looking in) and these threads critize articles of interest. Is there an option of bringing these in just for simple discussion in talk pages without any hindrances? (Sadly, it's related to GamerGate article for the moment, such as William Usher's Blogs about WikiArticle or KiA or other forums/Blog Articles that seem to have some credentials.) I'm asking you about this since what I've seen have a better grasp of the rules about Wiki (Five Pillars especially) and experience to back it up, and I've yet not seen any way of inputting critique from external common people that speak outside of wiki. TheRealVordox (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I am user User:AHLM13, who has been just blocked. I saw that you left a comment on my userpage. I wrote something on my talk page, and you can read. I did not attack Admin Anna Frodesiak, it is a sockpuppet of zordanlighter who pretend to be me. I asked to a checkuser if he can prove this. Thanks --Ahlm85 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the checkuser says, Ahlm85, so I don't believe you. But you don't have to convince me, you need to convince an administrator and creating more sock accounts to talk about your block doesn't help your case. Go through the proper channels to get unblocked. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Word count

Would switching from a format of diffs like

  1. DIFF
  2. DIFF
  3. DIFF

to DIFF DIFF DIFF affect my word count? Also, can I just put one signature at the bottom of my evidence to save on words? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove all signatures except the final signature. We use an online word counter and just copy all text except your final signature. You can check the word count yourself at http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml. Liz Read! Talk! 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you please re-count it when you have a chance? I think I'm basically done. I don't know what the markup language is, so I don't know if I'm just over or just under. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Markup language is just the wiki language (like user talk, <small>, Special:Contributions/Liz, etc.) that is part of the formatting or links but not part of the content. Liz Read! Talk! 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Faceless Enemy, I have the word count at 439 but you were pretty close to 500 words any way. While it varies from case to case, the arbitrators were advising not to give any notices unless the word count approached 600 words or more. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Since you are fair minded

Have a look here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Please guide us on acceptable use of personal webpages for BLP information and User talk:Leprof 7272#Discussion regarding the proper response to an editor deleting unsourced material in a BLP article. In the first case, the issue is a BLP article being populated with personal, self-published information from the title subject's personal webpage. (I was reverted when I removed them, and subbed in [citation needed].) The second case regards an ANI I was an observer at, not party to, where the individual was blocked for objecting to a reversion, where the reversion reintroduced deleted, unsourced text into the BLP article. This, you might recall, is the opposite of the ANI over the editing at Nazanin Afshin-Jam article, where I was taken to task for leaving the text in, except with [citation needed] added (i.e., fighting to not have the text deleted). First case is more important (active issue). Second is simply an example of ANI's pointing 180 degrees opposite, each time blocking a user... Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging by this conversation on your talk page, several other editors have already been pinged in order to weigh in on your situation. Liz Read! Talk! 09:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #158

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • Using Wikidata to Improve the Medical Content on Wikipedia
    • Past: Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) spoke about authority control in Wikidata (and sister projects) at the World Digital Library's Arab Peninsula Regional Group Symposium, organised in conjunction with the Qatar National Library, in Doha on 13 May. His slides, with an Arabic translation, will be online soon.
    • Past: Wikidata editing workshop at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin
    • Past: Wikidata workshop for archivists of Catalan City of Justice
    • Upcoming: MediaWiki hackathon in Lyon
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Prepared for deployment of arbitrary access on more wikis
    • Graph extension will be enabled on Wikidata later today
    • Improvements to calendar handling
    • More work on RDF export for query service
    • Continued work on usage tracking and arbitrary access for multilingual wikis
    • Addshore investigated and started fixing abuse filter issues
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
    • Help develop the next summary here!
    • Contribute to a Showcase item
    • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
    • Add labels, in your own language, for the new properties listed above.

Ping

Since you reported a problem with AIV's instructions recently, I'd particularly like your opinion about my new idea at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#We need better directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me for my opinion, WhatamIdoing. I offered my first impression but I think you really need to hear from other people, especially those who are relatively new to filing vandalism complaints, to find out what would have been useful to them. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Quick note...

Nicely done. St★lwart111 04:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I usually only close AN/I cases once an action has been taken by an admin, Stalwart111. But the discussion had deteriorated and the main parties seemed to have departed. But Liz Read! Talk! 13:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi Liz, Many thanks for your input at WP:AE here. I had a quick question - by "RfC" did you mean "Request for Closure", as in my previous comment, or did you mean the more usual usage "Request for Comment"? Happy either way, just wanted to be sure. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Co-author for Signpost Op-Ed?

On another note, in line with my post on Gamaliel's Talk page, would you be interested in co-authoring an Op-Ed for the Signpost? On WP:DUCK->WP:SOCK blocks; sort of a "pros & cons" of them (with reference to Editor Retention & Disruptive Editing?). I thought we might be able to provide well-reasoned contrasting opinions. Assuming that the editors think it's a worthwhile topic, of course. Please let me know if you'd be interested, and if you have any questions. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Ryk72, but I'm sure of what my position is or if it would be in opposition to yours. To be honest, I dislike the WP:DUCK rationale for blocking because it just relies on admins' instinct and judgement, not proof of any wrong-doing. And every DUCK block that I've ever seen is indefinite and I've seen them given out after less than a half dozen edits. Either admins have a more acute and finely attuned sense of recognizing sock accounts than I imagine or it is a harsh block that doesn't allow any challenges, most often because it is applied to new accounts and if they aren't socks, they sure haven't a clue on how they are to go about getting unblocked. So, I guess that is my position. It's a powerful tool and if misused, it can have really bad consequences. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Many thanks for the quick response. Our thoughts very much align, and while it would be possible for one of us to "play the Devil's Advocate", on reflection, that might seem disingenuous. The "purpose" of the proposed Op-Ed is to have Admins, and the wider community, consider exactly the issues that you have mentioned. Having been "on the receiving end" of such a block, I can say it is very frustrating to not have a viable way out of the situation. If I put some high-level thoughts (a draft of sorts) together, I might ask if you could review & improve. No implication of a requirement, of course - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of Talk:The Steps of the Sun

I've been editing here since 2007 and standards haven't changed too much, except for BLPs. Notability and minimum sourcing were always key concepts. In fact, I used to do NPP in past years and I think article creators have a somewhat easier time of it now, with exhortations to patrol from the back of the queue and trouts to editors who tag even remotely feasible articles too quickly. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, what I saw was a stalemate between three parties, going back and forth, each exclaiming that the other editor wasn't listening to them. I was trying to offer a third option that could accommodate both the productivity of the article creator as well as the critique that this particular article wasn't up to Wikipedia standards of quality. It looked like a battleground between two sides, one of whom was going to "win" while the other lost (and probably quit editing), and I was offering a way to, hopefully, improve the quality without the article creator feeling insulted, which he clearly feels.
And, personally, given some of the abysmal articles I've seen that were created around 2005-2008, standards have been raised substantially or perhaps it is the new pages patrol that has gotten especially vigilant in quickly deleting articles they see as substandard. I'm sure you have seen at the Teahouse that the most common complaint (by far) is from new editors who have created an article and find it deleted before they can turn it into a stronger article. A few of them stay and try to create a better version but I think most of them just leave and don't return to editing because they find it a waste of their time and a dispiriting experience to have their work summarily deleted. And, no, they know nothing about deletion review, they just know that their work is gone.
I reread your comment about NPP and find your perception that things are easier now to be very interesting and not what I would have expected. It's not the type of work I like to do so you probably have a better feel for it than I. I'm glad that those editors who tend to rank themselves by how many articles they can get deleted are getting some trouts these days. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #159

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
Wikimedia Hackathon 2015

500/30 Restriction

Hi Liz, regarding this. I think that restriction is only for the GG article and it's talk page, not the whole topic area. — Strongjam (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check in with Zad and revert myself and issue an apology if I made a mistaken. Liz Read! Talk! 10:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Contact-us links

Hey there. I noticed you comment at Talk:Ronn Torossian#Ronn Torossian commentary, and just wanted to check if you are aware that email address does not go to the WMF - it gets through to the volunteer response team, who are likely just to direct him back to the talk page/DRN or similar venues. Just for future reference really! Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know, Mdann52. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

the raw data is delayed

See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Server_rejecting_large_edit_via_browser_and_API

No one seems interested in responding, so if you know anyone who might be able to fix the problem, please let them know. Serendipodous 21:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I knew there had to be a reason. I wish I knew someone in WMF technical area to ask about it, Serendipodous, but I don't. I'll chime in on that thread to keep it active. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible alternative

Perhaps a subpage? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I just went ahead, made the question less specific, and asked it on the Teahouse talk page. I was trying to get your take on a situation but I think it's a question worth larger consideration. But damn that Wikipedia email system! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Different diff, definitely

I'm sure everyone knew what you meant anyway, but in your notifications about AC's decline of the A1candidate/CAM clarification request you seem to have cited the wrong diff -- something to do with the Rick Ross / Scientology request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I used the last diff before the CAM clarification was removed from the page, the last version of the page where the request was on the page. But I probably should have used the next diff where the section was deleted so I'll change that. Thanks for the notice. Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Abide

Simpler, yes. But less "fun", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How about the question about the spirit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I missed the question, Gerda. What was it? Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It was on the Callanec talk, you mentioned the spirit of the restriction. If there is any, it is a mystery to me. - My point of view: I am restricted myself and never found the spirit of that restriction. I have seen a "fair cop" report that a friend transgressed his restriction by formatting a infobox which had been malformatted by a newbie (which kept three noticeboards busy for weeks), - now Eric saying that he is not free to speak, - I didn't notice the slightest personal attack, - all this left me at a loss of insight, - help wanted. - I said on Jimbo's page (when Lightbreather announced retirement because of Eric) that I am still around because of Eric. - I confess that in my early days here I once wiki-linked "Bullocks" by another user - who approved ;) - in a mood of desperation. Now, I often just shake my head in disbelief, - beyond the state pictured here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, Gerda, Eric has a few editing restrictions (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for the list). I don't believe any of them were just pulled out of the air and randomly applied to him. They were imposed because there was disruption. Regarding these two edits that brought on the block, here is the pertinent section:

Indefinitely prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

This doesn't seem like an insurmountable restriction. Just don't talk about the GGTF! How hard is it to not talk about something that you are prevented from participating in? If I got a editing restriction and, say, couldn't edit articles about American politics, I would take them off my watchlist and stay away, rather than test the limits of my restriction and whether any edits would be noticed. Eric is a prolific editor and has a lot of different interests...how difficult is it to stay away from this subject?
I can appreciate that you are in admiration of Eric, from what I see, he has a lot of friends and supporters. What I don't understand though is how they can't see how this was all avoidable if Eric had respected the editing restrictions. Eric is free to contest whether or not they are valid restrictions or whether it is appropriate now to lift them. But they exist, he knew that they existed and he posted any way, twice. And that's about as much as I want to talk about this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, accepted, but no spirit found, in AE in general I mean, - a place I avoid when I can, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For believing in what you feel is right. Hope you have a good weekend.

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't win a lot of popularity contests! You have a good weekend, too. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #160

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

Message??

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

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

Duplicate posts at

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

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

This Month in Education: May 2015

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

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

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

Caitlin Jenner

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

Seriously, Serendipodous? Is your "week" period already over? Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Andrew's been having problems updating the Top 5000, but you can look at the raw data here: [3] Serendipodous 21:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mail call

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

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

Two similar threads in ANI which you closed

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

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

Awardagement

The coveted dingus.

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

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

United Synagogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

For coining Liz's Law of Longevity

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

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #161

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

FYI

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

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

My Article

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

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

BLPTALK on Irom Sharmila talk page

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

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

Talkback

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

ME

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

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

Just out of curiosity...

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

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

Reconsideration Request

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

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

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

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

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

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

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

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

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2015

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

Warning

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

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

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Talkback

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

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #162

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

ANI close

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

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

YGM

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

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

Page: Residential Schools Truth & Reconciliation Commission

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

Talk Page Stalker

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

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

Sorry for stepping on your feet

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

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

Template:Casenav/data

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

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

Casenav template

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

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

Opening cases, edit summary

Hey Liz, when you open a case from the RFAR page could you put a link into the edit summary to the destination page for the case please? Akin to [4][5][6]. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hammersoft, I will. This is the first case I've opened from scratch and I'm already getting good feedback on how I can do it better next time. I appreciate it. Liz Read! Talk! 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries :) Everybody does something for the first time. Also, could you please inform the parties to the case, like [7][8][9]? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Hammersoft, I was asked not to take further action until I heard back from the arbitrators. As soon as I get the go ahead, the first thing I'll do is post notices. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries. I understand there's been some off-wiki discussion of some kind about the case. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is off-wiki discussion of every case, primarily about setting or changing deadlines, who the clerks are that are working on a case and other stimulating organizational details. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin Nod?

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

That is very kind of you to say, Valoem. I might have an RfA in the future but not right now. I still have some work ahead of me. I appreciate your support and your comment made my day, thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, just wondering what the reasoning is? You are very level headed and have some strong supporters based on my research. I think you would be an editor who would benefit from having the mop as soon as possible. Valoem talk contrib 22:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think there are areas of editing that I am less familiar with and I would like to get a little more experience first because I imagine the subjects will come up. I'm not talking about months of experience, just a little more than I have now. But I hope to tend to this this summer. As for your research on me? I'm curious but fine not knowing what that's about! Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I came across you when I noticed this edit. I agree that version as the most neutral due to the fact there is no evidence against the accused. I went ahead and looked at some other edits all of which shows excellent discretion particularly when dealing with disputes. I feel that nominating you now is the best choice. If there are other areas you are looking to improve perhaps it would be best to practice with administrative tools as I feel you are more than ready. Also I've notice many editors come to you for guidance and advice, all signs of a good administrator. The sooner you have the mop the better for the encyclopedia, so I feel. I hope you could allow me to make the nomination, it would be beneficial for many editors. :) Valoem talk contrib 04:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Just wanted to say that I'd support you at RfA, and I wouldn't worry too much about the content creation, your other editing shows to me that you're more than capable of not breaking anything with the tools. I appreciate this comment might seem a bit random; I saw your username, realised that I didn't know if you were an admin, and was somewhat surprised to find that you weren't :) Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Samwalton9, that is very heartening to read. It makes my rather mundane Sunday afternoon! I am giving a RfA candidacy some thought and have considered some pluses and minuses of spending my time on admin tasks rather than my current projects. But I appreciate your support and I hope you are having a nice summer. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Bots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

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

The directory is live!

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

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

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

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

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

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

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

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

"Brigading" - per question at WP:AE

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

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

Concerning the GamerGate controversey article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

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

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

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

Cliches

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #163

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

Hi Liz!

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

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

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

My Article Cleanup

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

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

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

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

Dear Liz,

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Articles Improved Today

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

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

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

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

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

I tagged Accelerade as AFD.

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

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

Categories etc.

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: losing content editors

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

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

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #164

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

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

This Month in Education: June 2015

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_12&oldid=1090538176"