User talk:Liz/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2014

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 13:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Jerry Pepsi

Regarding your revert of my deletion of one of Jerry Pepsi's talk page comments, I said at the time that my deletions were based on the fact that, as the sock of a banned editor, he was not allowed to edit Wikipedia anywhere at any time, but that if any editor in good standing thinks that one of my deletions should be restored, I had absolutely no problem with that. So if you see any others, please don't hesitate.Best, BMK (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is not what I expected your talk page comment to say, BMK. I'm not looking over his contribution list, just watchlisting a few pages where he has been active. In general, it seems like JP had a tendency to remove material he thought was improperly sourced and he seemed to have the reference books at hand so I thought his questioning of the addition might have merits. But I don't expect to do so again.
Editors' attitude toward sock puppets does interest me. It's not just your reaction to JP, it's every time a sock account is uncovered, the admin response is swift and unforgiving. The only time I've seen a harsher response is recently when an accused editor introduced copyright violations and invalid sources. I know it is all a matter of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia so I understand the blocks. There is just so much more emotion involved in these cases than in a block for edit warring or having a COI. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe long-term editors like you and I and most admins have so much invested in Wikipedia, and those problems (socking and copyvios) seem more destructive to the viability of the institution. I remember reading somewhere that a country which can't control its borders is not really much of a country at all (shades of the current Ukraine crisis!), and socking is a direct attack on Wikipedia's borders.

My own reaction to Jerry Pepsi and the rest of Otto4711's socks goes back to some really nasty disputes between us in the earliest days of his socking. It's so enervating to try to deal with someone who's both unreasonable and nasty and won't even think about compromising. (I think I may have taken a block for edit warring with him with an earlier ID, that may have added to my hearty dislike for the person.) Anyway, I've sort of made it a pet project to keep track of his antics, and to get him blocked whenever he's recognized. BMK (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, BMK, I didn't know you had a previous run-in. My attitude about socks is that it is so incredibly simple to create an account, I think a fair share of regular WP editors have alternative accounts that they don't declare. I'm not saying that the accounts are used deceptively (heck, these accounts may not even have been used at all and have 0 edits), but I'm betting that they exist.
I believe this after encountering several cases where there were sock-fighting editors, who had been around for years, who, it turns out, had their own sock accounts and they later found themselves blocked. So, if even a few anti-sock editors also sock, there is more of it going around than people want to acknowledge. Like I said, I think most of it hasn't swayed AfDs, RfAs ARBCOM elections and the like because it is low level and not destructive. But I'm sure more of it exists than anyone realizes. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you, and if I was King of Wikipedia, and if it was technically possible, I'd require the entire community to declare 2 or 3 working acounts that are visibly and obviously linked to each other, then I'd run check user on everyone and nuke the rest of the accounts. From then on, that's it, amnesty is over, you edit with another account or you edit deceptively while logged out (avoiding scrutiny) and *bam* you're indef blocked, no questions asked, no long drawn-out discussion. If it were that clear-cut than the good editors who keep an account on the side "just in case" (they tell themselves) won't be tempted to do it, and we would know who we're talking to when we're talking to them (as much as we can "know" while using pseudonyms). To me the whole "no fishing expeditions" requirement of CU is ludicrous, I'd rather control the borders so that we can all get on with editing, and require that a CU be run at anyone's suggestion at any time. (And I say all this despite the fact that I have two previous accounts, and have registered a bunch of names similar to my username to keep them out of the hands of people who might like to use "Beneath My Ken" to get at me - but each of them is clearly labelled as what they are.) BMK (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, we would have to multiply the number of checkusers by 100 times! Another thing I've learned is that just about every single administrative area on WP is understaffed and could use more eyes and hands. So, we'll just have to go with rooting out the most egregious offenders. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
True, but such are y daydreams! BMK (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #108

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

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Do not remove my comments, as you have done here [1]. If you do it again, action will be taken.

Regards,

Evildoer187 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That was an edit conflict and had nothing to do with you, it could have happened with any editor who was also editing AN/I at the same time. My apologies, I didn't realize my edit removed your comment, it was certainly not intentional. Edit conflicts happen on AN/I fairly often because it is a heavily edited page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and an FYI

Thanks for your tag on Qamaruddin Chishti Sabiri. Just so you know that is one of a number of articles that have been the object of some very aggressive, and arguably disruptive, agenda driven editing by Summichum. He recently gutted a bunch of articles he didn't like down to stubs, and then tagged them for CSD. I don't know that background to it, but there appears to be some kind of edit war going on between proponents of two different Islamic sects playing out on in a bunch of articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ad Orientem, I saw the complaints about Summichum on WP:EWN and decided to look at his edits where he removed 1500 or more characters from articles (it was often between 2500-4000). Luckily, there are other editors looking into his edits as well so many of the larger deletions have been reverted. But thanks for the thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I appreciate you coming to my defense. However, I have decided to leave Wikipedia voluntarily. The way that thread is going, it looks like that may be the ultimate outcome anyway. I know that we have disagreed in the past, but I bear no ill will. The only thing I can hope for now is that the articles sort themselves out.

Evildoer187 (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bouncing

Of course you can ignore this comment as a Who Asked You? — but I find the bouncing Wikilogo distracting & annoying. (But then, the other day someone called me a Grumpy Old Man.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

AE Notification

There is an AE request that may concern you. Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

MAW

Actually, if you bothered to do some homework, you'd see that WP:MAW was created a few years ago. Adding the acronym is no problem. So time to move on and do something else I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mark. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #109

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

I just wanted to thank you again for explaining a lot of Wikipedia stuff to me, people like you are so kind and the reason why the world goes around. :) --Reigningbc (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Reigningbc. I remember my first days being an active editor here. There are a lot of different administrative areas "backstage", so to speak, that readers don't know about. The people who edit here regularly are familiar with policies and guidelines and will usually respond to a question by referring to one or another, which don't mean much if you are new to editing Wikipedia. My best advice to you is to visit WP:TEAHOUSE, they have a skilled and patient group of volunteers working there. I remember going there my first week and ranting about someone reverting me and how unfair it was and they helped me learn not to take such things personally. There is a steep learning curve but after you work through your first article, with all the speed bumps entailed, future articles will be easier. And if it helps, all of these rules exist to keep unsourced, tabloidish, opinions off the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think?

The reason I will not get into the article you commented on is because it is ideologically driven and I have no time for wiki politics and agenda pushing. I read the article and was astounded by the amount of bias and opinions pretending to be facts so I commented on it. Simply put I have more important things to work on than an article that is a left vs. right battleground. Thanks for your comment. 208.54.40.228 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand but that is too bad. We need unbiased editors who value scientific sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
And as I stated above it has come true when answering questions on the talk page. The accusers came like flies to you know what. I am accussed of not answering questions after another editor chose to close discourse on the talk page. Challenging their notions in any way is not welcome. Criticism is not well received by agenda warriors and they seem to come in groups which makes me wonder how many are lobbying or are in fact the one and same. No time for the nonsense. Agenda pushers do not matter in my world. Wikipedia is a waste of my time. Thanks for your input. 208.54.40.228 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticizer emboldened

FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, in which you participated, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi#Request per WP:NPA.

Suggestions/advice appreciated. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you disengage and take In ictu oculi's talk page off your watchlist. I see them saying, "I have no dispute with you, and am not interested in having one." I don't see this as uncivil behavior. Move on, do not interact with this editor, there are 4 million articles you can work on so you do not have to encounter each other. Pursuing this matter will lead to more frustration for you. That's my advice.
If it matters, I can not think of one editor that I know here that hasn't had unpleasant interactions with at least one other editor. Conflict is to be expected and it's important to know when to calmly persist in putting forth your arguments, when to compromise and when to just move on and work on other pages. I'm not saying it's easy, but otherwise you will be a very frustrated editor. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Very helpful. Much appreciated. --В²C ☎ 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

One question: if IIO feels he has no dispute with me, why did he make that antagonizing statement, unprovoked, out of the blue? And again, if that was a one-time thing, it would be a no-brainer to walk away. But I've been putting up with such comments for years. I guess I'm getting sick of it. It's disruptive to achieving consensus. --В²C ☎ 01:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless to speculate on an online user's motivations. It's hard for people to be honest on what motivates their own actions, much less know why other people do what they do. I'm sorry you are frustrated. If you can no longer WP:AGF, it's probably time for a wiki-break. Maybe not a long one, just a few days. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You are a big help. Very wise. I feel this is getting resolved through discussion. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 02:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your evenhandedness, alongside Ravensfire and Bushranger, in the matter of the block of 71.239.82.39 (Le Prof). Your speaking up first opened the door to others to approach the questions of the case as less open-and-shut that NeilN had portrayed them. It was, as you recognized early, a content-centered dispute, though in the end I believe it rubbed up against some very important fundamental policy areas where Wikipedia remains a playground instead of a serious, just workplace.

As you sensed, I do not "suffer fools gladly" as they say, especially when disinterested Huggle and Twinkle users fly into a situation, ignore Talk and look only at Edit summaries, and revert in a moment what might have been (and was, in my case) hours of thoughtful, quality aiming editorial work. You alone seem to have caught the gist of the matter—that "not dave" 's gut-the-article-if-need-be approach then taken on by NeilN flew in the face of widespread Wikipedia reality. Consistent citations (in BLP and in general), are just theory, and in many, many places very distant from the reality. (A cease in point is the article on Nazanin Fatehi, which brought me to the linked celebrity article on Afsen-Jam, that eventually brought down fire from the sky.) As you said, "in practice, there is a lot of... unsourced information ... on Wikipedia... left alone because it is not controversial", including much that is BLP.

Bottom line, I thank you for your open-mindedness and fairness, in a context where the lead opponent was committedly otherwise, even to the point of corner-cutting with situational details, even to the point of dissembling. (See my "last word" responses to NeilN's accuse-him-when-blocked here [2], where my last responses and my closing philosophical tome bear a bold, underlined Le Prof.) Though it did this particular process little good, and my plans for departure are still certain, please know that your involvement was a true ray of hope. It is unfortunate that sensible, thoughtful contributors like you, Ravens, and Bush rarely prevail in fly-by initiated cases.

Feel free to read the text at my User page, [3], before I leave—it is masked, but readable by choosing Edit—and I will mark your Talk page. Here also (something I never do here): 24531488, 21149638, 21087925, 24311580 (for instance). These, if Google-searched in conjunction with "PMID", will each give as their first hit, a separate kind of real contribution that we two have in common.

Finally, I would offer myself to help in any situation where comparable objectivity is needed, related to your effort. Just drop a note at my talk. Greyed as it is, I will still look to anything from you, and respond quickly. Again, appreciation, and respect, abounding. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the compliment even though some of your comment is rather cryptic! My concern in this case (and in others) is that the process of editor review is fair, I wasn't making a judgment on the content of the article.
I will add that editing Wikipedia is frequently a challenge for academics, not because of their lack of ability, it's just that, for most people, collaborative editing is a challenge. The fact that an editor can put time and effort into working on an article and their work can be undone by another editor simply by hitting the "Undo" button, can be maddening. Academics are used to being challenged and critiqued by their peers in their discipline but it is humbling to be criticized by anonymous users and be obligated to respond and dialog in order to create a consensus for changes that you believe are uncontroversial. It's hard for all of us to do but I think it is extra challenging for those who are professionals in their field.
Good luck with your future efforts, wherever they might be! Liz Read! Talk! 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
With this award I acknowledge, with abiding respect, Liz's consistent service here in editorial civility and diplomacy: for exhibiting orders of magnitude greater attention, diligence, and engagement in Wikipedia content and policy disputes that come her way in general, and in particular in the recent process of blocking an old Professor. (Her effort, as much as anything, might have kept one more content expert in the Wikipedia fold.) Note, this is only the second award of any type that I have given in my tenure here, and the first to an editor. Le Prof . Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Leprof 7272. I'm glad I could help! Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:American women philosophers

Category:American women philosophers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised, Obi-Wan Kenobi? Just a continuing crusade against gender-based categories. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm yeah, like yours [4],[dead link] or your crusade against jews being from Middle East, or your crusade to vote keep for all gendered cats no matter how much they violate our guidelines. Be fair Liz -- cats are created by individuals but they are kept or deleted by consensus, I'm just putting them forward to the community, and the community has agreed with me 95% of the time. There are also thousands of gendered cats that I will never touch and that I have actually expanded and added hundreds of women or men to. So please lay off the rhetoric and use of the word crusade, it's uncalled for and misplaced and wrong . I go after cats that violate guidelines, whether gendered, LGBT, race-based, not defining, subjective, etc. I have a special focus on non -diffusing cats since those make it sometimes too easy to ghettoize. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that , not surprisingly, this category has already ghettoized 35 women philosophers. Remember what happened when one woman novelist got ghettoized ?-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This is one instance where the abbreviation of categories as cats leads more to humour than clarity. And without fully immersing myself, I would say that longstanding marginalization of either men or women, or between races, in any area (intentional or as a result of historic biases) make it reasonable to consider a gender or race differentiated article. My profession, historically devoid of women as it long was, now has, through its principle American society, special meetings, events, and awards that recognize the achievements of women chemists. If the principle global society in a field does so, should not a popular encyclopedia? In the same way, the historic difficulties of American-Americans breaking into medicine and biomedical research have led to a reasonable focusing on their contributions in their most challenging periods of the history. Do these examples begin to offer something of a line that might be followed? Perhaps "historic evidence of marginalization in a field or area where interest was present, but stymied, and where number disparities are sufficient enough to warrant consideration"? ("Lor' hep us" if that does not preclude embalmers.) That said, Obi, one might suggest you consider the detachment of your namesake, unless you wish to be seen as one who is characteristically an ironic manifestation of the name they have taken. Granted, Liz first used the word, but to get to the crux: where is the wisdom in extending its use, and to the Middle East? Alongside the inserted spaces around your punctuation here, your overall language is "loaded" enough that one might wonder—also given the sublime object of your ire—if you yourself are are. A little too much Dark Nest Membrosia or Mandalorian Black Ale [5]? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Prof. This was probably written on my smartphone, which may explain the odd spaces in punctuation... I was using the word "crusade" to point out the problems with its use as a critique of me, and indicating areas that Liz has been known to "crusade" over a long term in pushing a particular point (and the irony, since the now deleted edit was Liz nominating a "gendered" category for deletion!). The middle east point is actually something I agree with Liz on, and I've been part of that "crusade" - it's a matter of a categorization dispute that is ongoing even today with about 10 reverts in the past 24 hours (see [6]), so still a contentious area, I'd stay away if you value your time. I wish I knew more about Star Wars substances, I haven't read the books just the films... Anyway, re: your broader point, that is ONE part of the criteria for a gendered or ethnic category at WP:EGRS - any given intersection must be notable - but it has little to do with whether group X had difficulty getting into job Y, it has to do with whether reliable sources discuss the intersection of X and Y as a notable subgrouping. However, there are other criteria for such categories, including the "Final rung rule", which attempts to avoid ghettoization by not dividing a tree at the leaf level into gendered categories. As such, Category:American women philosophers violates this rule, while Category:Women philosophers does not. I note that we have Category:Women_chemists, but the current category structure would not permit Category:Chinese women chemists since this category would tend to ghettoize. Liz still hasn't answered my question below, but she regularly opposes any "female" category I nominate for deletion. I'm just trying to figure out if she has a line in the sand, and if so where it is - because it seems different than current consensus would indicate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the calm. Perhaps it was sapir tea? [7] (But then I only know of such imbibing what I learn of an instant, trying to bring a bit of humour. Or humous, if you were quick to get here.) On subject, let's see what Liz—who you must know I esteem greatly at this place, for her evenhandedness and general fair-mindedness (see Barnstar of earlier)—might say, given some reasonable time. For each of us, different buttons can get pushed, and it may be that you each have found and push the other's. If you two can sort this, it may be of lasting good for this place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
agreed... Liz is good people, and she and I agree on most things, I think at least. Always happy to find a happy solution...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Liz, sometimes when I nominate a gender- or ethnicity-based cat for deletion, you oppose and accuse me of trying to dismantle the whole "women" tree. Let's turn the tables and allow me to understand clearly your POV. Do you believe that for every neutral category of people X, we should create a category of "Women X"? If not, in what cases should we NOT create "Women X", and in what cases *should* we? For example, we have a category Category:Embalmers, with 5 people in it. Should we create a category Category:Women embalmers below it? If so, why? If not, why not? There are 195 subcats of Category:People by occupation, but only 104 "Women by occupation" and only 22 "Men by occupation". Should we have 195 top-level cats for women and 195 top-level cats for men? I'm trying to figure out where your line in the sand is, since it's obviously different than mine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Your Recent communications

Thank you for you're warning about the edit issues with the page Jetix I notice you have been fair and give both of us a warning, But it seems the other users has also given me the same warning, which to be fair is the pot calling the kettle black: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazyseiko&oldid=608423006 I think this is rather unfair. Can you tell me what actions I should/ can or etc talk? --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Crazyseiko, ONE warning for edit-warring on a single article is sufficient. I don't know what Spshu was thinking to place a second warning there, right under the first warning. Feel free to remove it. I want to emphasize that this was just a warning because you are both at 3 reverts. One more revert and it is likely that a complaint will be filed at WP:EWN. So, please do not continue this behavior, please try to discuss your differences on the article talk page. Hopefully, other editors will participate in the discussion and a consensus will be clearer. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Because you didn't name it some how after the article, giving a month year section name, Liz. He is at 4 reverts. He said he would address the issue then continued to push the PR crap if you bother to read the discussion, Liz. Spshu (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That is unnecessarily hostile, Spshu. I used the warning template that comes with Twinkle and the date appears in my signature along with a reference to Jetix.
You were both involved in an edit war and could be reported, regardless of the content of the edit. But I think you are well aware of Wikipedia policies. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hostile, you are here claiming that I am hostile to Crazyseiko for adding another warning. So, you being unnecessarily hostile when I show I have acted in good faith with Seiko by indicating I was in discussion with him is hostile. So, hostile is admitting why a mistake occurred (the duplicate 3RR warning on Seiko's page). The issue was resolved (I though) base on what was said on the talk page! So, enforcing what he agreed to on the talk page plus removing duplicated information and he just mostly blindly adds back in or making an edit that show I am attempt to include some thing that I think I might have missed from his perspective is edit warring? There isn't an absolute rule re: "regardless of the content of the edit" as there are rules about outright vandalism. Gee, thank for all AGF. If you want AGF then give AGF. Spshu (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to explain, The Paragraph come from the UK Jetix page, User believe that was content fork and was also blanket that page, (no idea why its the same company) So I moved it over to the Jetix page. The user said "rmv. primary source marketing speak" Not actually trying to fix the page. I made the changes, reworded the information, found a tone of refs, and even added in quote from the business manager, To be fair did what he wanted, but he seems to rather dislike any quotes from company's personnel, which is used else where in wikipedia. I know I shouldn't have done it, but I made alot of changes to comply. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ghetto latte

Fyi, I've followed up on your suggested move of Ghetto latte. Discussion is at Talk:Ghetto latte#Requested move. Ibadibam (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ibadibam, I had forgotten about the comment I made there. Thanks for taking the initiative and requesting this move. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ

Targ has already contacted WMF via OTRS, he has made this clear in the past. They will have given him the standard advice to biography subjects (which I wrote) and remitted the matter back to Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation does not take a stance on content, as you know, other than to mandate foundational policy. The statement that remote viewing is considered pseudoscience is robustly sourced. The existence of the film The Men Who Stare At Goats says it all, really. Targ hates this: he probably still believes in Uri Geller, too. We can't help with that. The fact is that, as established from reliable sources, he wasted decades of his life and millions of dollars pursuing a false notion.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

— Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I feel for him. Many people waste time, effort, money and emotional passion on wrong ideas, but few do it in a way that is so public and so widely studied as a canonical example of its kind. I am all for sympathy, but not at the expense of whitewashing. We should write biographies in the same spirit that Cromwell demanded his portrait be painted: warts and all. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this, Guy. I just saw an elderly, nearly blind man who was very frustrated with how he is described on Wikipedia. I don't know whether he is or isn't a pseudoscientist, I just have dealt with other living persons (mostly in entertainment) who are upset with their articles and it's standard to refer them to OTRS because they are adept at explaining the situation to them. I also thought that some editors were extremely harsh and disrespectful to him which they are unlikely to be if he was a mainstream scientist. Editors can be civil even if they believe some of his research is worthless.
But I appreciate you explaining the situation to me, there was more to it than I was aware of. I still think of him as a newbie editor and he should be treated as such, with patience. Again, this is another situation where I'm concerned with how fellow editors are being treated. People who are familiar with his scholarship and career can work out the disputes in his article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand, and this attitude does you credit. A few of the more militant skeptical editors have been immoderate in their comments, and calls to ban him from the talk page of the article reflect very poorly on us. My meaning was that he has probably already been round that loop, he should know he has no other avenue of appeal. It's up to us to make sure the article remains fair, which is why I find it personally disappointing that he repudiates the scientific consensus view of remote viewing. That makes it very even if we got the article up to FA standard, he still would not like it. That's really a bit depressing. I always say that our articles should be written so that the subject will at least acknowledge we are fair, even if they don't like the article. Here, we cannot hope to achieve that. It's sad. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2014



Headlines

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

request

Hello. I see that you have edited and worked hard on articles dealing with television programming. I have a question, that I hope you can help me out with. Regarding the article "List of programs previously broadcast by American Broadcasting Company". I was trying to remember the name of a program on ABC...shown in New York, some years past, every Saturday at 12 noon. It was a talk show news philosophical type program. I was wondering why that program (whatever the name was, that I can't recall right now), is not shown or mentioned anywhere in the WP article. It's one of those things that if I SAW the name somewhere, I would recall it. So I don't see it on the article. I was wondering and hoping if you might know what I'm referring to. It was on for YEARS...from what I remember, always on Saturday at 12 noon (at least shown in New York), on ABC...channel 7. I don't remember the name of the program for some reason. It was on in the 1990's, and into past 2000, I believe. And it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere in the article, as there is no "Saturday afternoon" headings anywhere, or anything that I notice for it under "news and talk show" etc. If I were to see the name of the show written somewhere, or mentioned to me, I would recall it immediately, as being the show. But I can't remember it right now off hand, and I don't see it anywhere on the WP article, for "past ABC programs". I hope you have an idea what I'm talking about, or know the program name in question. Please let me know. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, hello, Gabby Merger! I have only worked a little on television programming articles. I lived in New Jersey during this time but I don't recall this show. It sounds like a local show. I looked at WABC-TV but they only have news programs and on-air talent listed. I went to IMDb and found this list of programs distributed by WABC but nothing looks like the show you are describing. You could post your question on the WABC-TV article talk page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. You might look at television shows in the Category:Local talk shows in the United States or Category:Local television programming in the United States.
Those are the ideas that come to mind with the information you've given me. It could very well be that there is no mention of this show on Wikipedia (and you could try searching IMDb) but if you do remember the name, I hope you can remedy that situation. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You're not gonna believe this. I owe you thanks. One of the category links that you gave me to try "Category:Local talk shows in the United States" I went to. And not many "talk shows" are there, but a few are. And remember when I said that if I was to see the name of the show I would IMMEDIATELY know that that's the show? Well, lo and behold, the name of the show is "The Open Mind". But here's the problem. (And I was thinking this already.) It doesn't seem to have been aired on ABC...and that was where the confusion was. But I finally found the show, and I know that it was shown on Saturdays, at noon. But for some reason I thought it was showed on ABC channel 7. It was PBS!!! And I thought of that too. Anyway, sorry for the trouble. It was not on ABC, but PBS. Why I had ABC in my mind for this, I'm not sure. But I do really appreciate your help. You came through, even though you didn't know the show or find it per se, the clues and links you gave really did it for me. Much thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm so glad, Gabby Merger....and, frankly, surprised! From your description, I didn't think there would be an article on the show. But it's great that you found your answer. I know it drives me crazy when I can't think of the name of an actor I saw in a TV episode or I can't remember what band had a hit song in 1996 that's been replaying in my mind. I'm happy that I could help. Liz Read! Talk! 11:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean. Thanks. By the way, I was curious. Have you heard of the show "The Open Mind"? Are you at all familiar with it? It's a very good program...been on since 1957! And still on air. You heard of it? Gabby Merger (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It sounds familiar but I don't think I ever saw it. And from your opening comments, I assumed it was no longer on the air. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks again....

hi.. Thanks. I know what you mean. And it is a really good show. By the way, I was curious. Have you heard of the show "The Open Mind"? Are you at all familiar with it? It's a very good program...been on since 1957! And still on air. You heard of it? Gabby Merger (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds familiar but I can't say I ever saw the show. From your original comments, I thought it had been off the air for a while. But news and talk shows tend to have a long life, most of the longest-lasting television shows are news and talk shows. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

could I ask for your assistance?

Hello Liz! You recently made a comment on my talk page and I've looked into your history here. You seem like a breath of fresh air. I hope this is not an inappropriate question to ask, but Deepak Chopra's article could use a rational mediating voice and was wondering if this could attract your attention. An admin (freerangefrog) has already commented on my COIN and specifically requested non involved or neutral editors could come and help out due to the skeptic activity on the page. One user whom you know who offered to help is being harassed. Another user you know has offered to help but also wants to back off because of the harassment. I represent an archive and am a researcher - I have ethics too and my job is to work within Wikipedia policy specifically, I'm not a PR rep or a marketing rep. I've even asked Atama, an admin I respect very much, if I could offer WP REWARD in the form of a donation to Wikipedia for editors who volunteer to come in and help. It's just been difficult to have a rational discussion - I think if some rational voices participate it will become more productive. Any help, advice, participation very meaningful over here. Sorry if this is out of line too. I think I have the ok to reach out for help, but every step I take according to Wikipedia BLP I also get called out for by some editors and everything I do in some eyes is wrong :( SAS81 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, I think there is still a reward page here somewhere but I don't think it would help your case. I think I understand your position, I have both worked on grant projects and I worked at an archive for close to two years, both of these projects have articles on them or their sponsoring organizations. I can easily see a colleague asking me to work on their Wikipedia entry while I was affiliated but that doesn't mean someone is a paid editor, a PR person or even an official representative of a group. It does mean there is an inherent conflict-of-interest but, from what I've seen, you have been transparent and forthcoming about this.
The conflict is that there are editors on Wikipedia who are believe that any scholar or author who writes about science (off-wiki) be either a practicing scientist or someone like a journalist who specializes in writing about the sciences. Even an age-old and respected practice like acupuncture comes in for exceptional scrutiny. I think the key is "what are you (that is, any editor or the subject of the article) claiming to be true?" If there are claims that some course of treatment has health benefits, there will need to be reliable sources to support that assertion (and this excludes literature by the individual or organization). A problem that some new editors have is that they include assertions taken right out of the books of the authors without being able to back up the claims with references to reliable sources, particular in medicine or health research.
As far as my involvement, well, let's just say I'm wary. I don't know anything about Deepak Chopra other than that he's a best-selling author but I've never read any of his work. But because I have defended editors who are sympathetic to alternative science or alternative medicine, there is guilt by association and there will be other editors who will object to anything I have to say, without assessing its value. But it sounds like this is already a situation you have found yourself in! I can take the heat but I'm not sure how much anything I say will impact the article. That is, I'm not sure my opinion will hold any weight and I'll be effective. I also can't promise that there will be any agreement with your views and how I think the article could be shaped up. But I do have an open mind and I aim to abide by all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Soooo, what I will do is look over the situation and see if I can be of any help. I also might ask another editor or two if they think participating is wise. But, on Wikipedia there is no WP:DEADLINE and nothing is WP:PERFECT so there is always time and room for improvement, if not today than at some point in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Liz (talk · contribs) - that's an interesting response. I have some questions, which I hope will do two things. Firstly, if you answer them well, you'd be demonstrating good medical knowledge and hence WP:COMPETENCE - which is required, and I (and I'm sure other watchers) would be much more confident of your ability to step into this discussion (and similar), which is clearly something you've been thinking about doing.
So, in relation to your comment above:
  • Who do you think acupuncture is "respected" by? Medical professionals?
    • If so, why do you think that [medical professionals, or whoever] respect, or should respect it? Because it's old? Because you think it works?
Moving on to some general medical questions:
Meanwhile, doctors use treatments that have been shown to work (in double-blind, placebo-controlled medical trial), even if they're not sure how those treatments work. The docs will prescribe the treatments while a medical scientists works in a lab, probably with animal models, to try to figure out why this is, and maybe even improve the treatment. But in such cases, it's possible to derive a hypotheses, albeit even a very general one, in terms of existing biological knowledge. For example "we think this drug binds to a protein which affects the behaviour of a cell - we're just not sure which protein it binds to, or what the cascade effect of this is"). This is known as cause and effect.
  • In medical context, how can acupuncture (or other alternate treatment of your choice) produce a desired effect?
Thanks in advance for your considered response.
This message is brought to you not trolling but in trying to understand where you are coming from. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You first, Barney. You know, so I can know where you are coming from. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do know these things, but then I've had a lot of formal training in statistics, biomedical sciences and have read books in this area. I wouldn't claim I'm an expert, but I don't think that someone knowing less than me should be editing. Nothing too heavy, popular science books cover these issues (e.g. Singh & Ernst). Acupuncture is a bit tricky actually since there is some evidence that it helps treat certain types of pain (but nothing else). There is a suitable mechanism for this (stimulating the body to release endorphins), but this isn't the mechanism claimed by the quacks (which is chi but that is just plainly is incompatible with medical science), However, it is very difficult to conduct trials that are both double blind and placebo-controlled. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz thank you for your very thoughtful answer. Despite what barney is telling you, my role and my arguments are not about medical research or arguing for or against a medical source. The problem on the article simply involve biographical facts about the subject which are pretty straightforward. The majority of the editors hold very strong suspicions about the subject matter and not allot of knowledge (for example, Dr Chopra is not even an alternative medicine practitioner, yet the article was stating he was) and therefore are either omitting facts about his biography or framing them in such a way as to give the reader the same suspicions they hold. I just want the article to list biographical facts about the subject with the proper weight and neutrality. Just having one or two rational voices on the page would be very helpful to help editors stay neutral with the sources and the weight. Of course, seeing how you are already being harassed for even speaking with me, you see the problem getting quality neutral editors involved. No one wants to deal with the harassment :( SAS81 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, SAS81! I read over parts of the talk page discussion and it is just unwieldy and complex. Let me give you some frank advice. If you try to resolve your disagreements on the article talk page, you have a number of editors who strongly oppose you, regardless of what changes you suggest. Your edits should be judged, individually, on their merits but human nature being what it is, people get labeled. You are seen as a sympathizer so those editors who have a skeptical view on these matters will oppose your suggestions unless you make clear concessions like accepting the label of "pseudoscientist" for Chopra. Since editing conflicts are settled on consensus, you are frankly outnumbered in that forum.
So, what I'd suggest, since there has been discussion but no resolution on the article talk page, is to go to WP:DRN (dispute resolution or mediation). In this forum, each side can put forth their arguments and a mediator will guide the discussion and work toward a compromise. The decision will be based on the strength of your arguments and reliable sources, not about how many people you can draw to participate in a talk page discussion. It will also let you have the ability to list, point by point, what changes you are seeking. You might win some, lose some, win all, lose all, but there is a structure and civility to the proceedings of a dispute resolution while article talk page discussions can be a bit of a free-for-all.
Let me know if you do choose this route. I am reluctant to join in the talk page discussion because, while I have no strong opinions about Chopra (other than WP:BLP is an important policy), I am not seen as neutral. If this goes into mediation, I would feel comfortable assessing the article, your suggestions and offering my opinion. I realize that this is probably much more work than you expected this to be but dispute resolution would likely result in more lasting changes, rather than random edits that can easily be undone by those editors who have different perspectives from you. I should add that dispute resolution is a voluntary process so those editors who oppose your changes have to be willing to participate for the mediation to be effective.
Enjoy this spring day! Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with Liz that DR is a good next step. Usually a first step in DR is a NB. In your case you did go to an appropriate NB, the BLP/NB. The next DR step would probably be the DR Notice Board, but before you do that I think you have to decide on what content you want resolution. I know you've been criticized for dealing with the article itself, and then when you went back to work on the content line by line beginning, well, with the beginning, you were criticized then too and told to deal with the article even as you were being told the article was fine.The first step I think is to resolve this. DR will work better for you if you deal with small bites at a time. The DR Notice Board does not require every editor in the discussion to declare that they will take part which is the case with formal mediation which presents obvious problems; if some editors refuse to to take part the mediation cannot take place. I'd go to the DR/ NB first once you've decided which approach to take.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC))
Thank you both! I've taken a week or so off from this to keep cool and recollect my bearings. @Liz I see you are swamped with requests for help too. I really appreciate your time and effort.SAS81 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why

Why did you hide my comment on Jimbo's talk page? Everyking (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

He closed the comments. A few people made additional comments and he hid those comments in another hat. He would have moved or deleted your comments as well as he clearly doesn't want to comment on this situation. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course he doesn't want to comment, but he needs to. He needs to explain why he is supporting off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians. When Jimbo takes a position like that, in light of his role within the community, it matters, and he needs to engage in discussion about it. The community deserves better than to be subjected to some decree and then be barred from even discussing it. Everyking (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
No, he doesn't. And off-wiki harassment is your interpretation, not shared by others. --NeilN talk to me 22:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Everyking, it's his talk page. People bring all sots of problems to him. He can choose to participate and advise, ignore messages, delete or archive comments. It's clear that he sees the letter as justified. If you think this topic needs to be addressed, I think you'd have better luck at WP:AN/I or WP:ARBCOM, not Jimbo's talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. If you want action taken against AGK, start a RFC/U. How many times have admins said that to other editors? --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not like he's an ordinary Wikipedian. If he wants to be one, that's fine with me, but he obviously doesn't; he wants to be our "constitutional monarch". People routinely treat his talk page as if it's a noticeboard, and he shouldn't shut off discussions in such an imperious manner, especially when he's taking such an extreme and controversial view on the subject. True, it wasn't the best venue, but that's where the discussion was happening. Once discussions get shut down like that, it's hard to get them back up and running somewhere else. Everyking (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Everyking, I hold different views from you but I posted comments in the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee discussion. The conversation is active there. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Liz:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Jimbo's Page

Just replying to your comments here, as I don't plan to get drug into heavy drama on that page. I'm basing my comment on my observations of the many attempts that have been made to reform or modify the way Admins are selected (RfA and so on). Quite often proposals were stonewalled or diverted until they could be declared dead. Dennis_Brown was involved with some of that and may have an insider view. I was only observing. During that process it became fairly clear that even collaborative proposals could be slowed or stopped by a collaborative block. Interestingly we did see some shifts there, with Kudpung moving from the role of blocker to a slight advocate for change. However, from watching that process it became clear that with policies that involve power it was far too easy to bring them to a collaborative halt. Intothatdarkness 18:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I have been more involved in admin accountability than RFA. WP:RAS was the policy I proposed, WP:RRA was another's idea. And yes, there is no greater power at Wikipedia than having a few editors who want to bitch about how things are now, but are unwilling to consider any change, thus argue agaainst any change, until the idea dies the death of a thousand cuts. Being someone who isn't afraid of big, bold changes, I find it particularly frustrating. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Especially when change is needed. The site has evolved, and the structure that runs it should evolve with it, not stay locked at what worked in the beginning. Anyhow, thanks for chiming in, Dennis, and I'll leave your talk in peace, Liz. Intothatdarkness 19:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your candor, Intothatdarkness and Dennis Brown and also value your experience. Although I created my original account in 2007, I've only been active in a regular fashion here since July 2013. I've read over some of Kudpung's work analyzing the RfA process, the pages of conversation on reform which seem to occur annually until 2013. I'm sure if I read over some of the proposals that were posted at the Village Pump and died a quiet death, I'd be even more depressed!
Change takes a lot of effort and coordinated (or semi-coordinated) action by a group of respected editors and admins. It also seems like there were years (2006-2008) when a lot of change happened and policies created so it could be that, after 13 years, Wikipedia has become somewhat ossified and less flexible to the introduction of new ideas. I also know that there are fewer editors and they are spread thinly throughout the project. Just in the year I've been active, I see less participation at WP:AN/I than there was 6 months ago (which could be a bad or good thing!). With so much effort by admins and editors just to keep up with the backlog, it leaves less time and fewer people to discuss policy proposals (at least, until a crisis occurs). Good policy is not made by reacting to crises but sometimes it is the only way change happens. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It's that period of change that led me to start thinking of OWN of policy. Some of the folks who took part in Dennis' "death of a thousand cuts" (in many areas, not just the proposals he worked on) were involved in those policy changes, and I think over time they became personally vested in those changes. Any attempt to change what they'd worked on came to be seen as a personal attack against them. I think it's funny that Wikipedia can be so aggressive against article OWN (which in some ways is a part of quality control if it's done in the form of peer review) but seems to collectively deny that it can also happen for policies (which in truth seem to be developed the same way the articles are). The way essays seem to morph into policy is also troubling. But I digress. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My AfC Revisions

Hello Liz,

I just wanted to take a minute and let you know that I've been asked to suspend my membership at AfC. Please see User_talk:JustBerry. Yes, I know. But, I suppose I can deal with articles I have reviewed in the past. --JustBerry (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, JustBerry. I looked at your talk page and I see that declining AfC submissions is a sure way to get people to visit your talk page! I hope you find an experienced mentor and your work continues. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 15:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I feel that working with a more experienced, well-rounded mentor may help me strengthen my knowledge on Wikipedian policies and have a clearer judgement when reviewing articles. --JustBerry (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
That is the best possible response to criticism...use it as encouragement to improve ones abilities. Liz Read! Talk! 15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 16:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2014

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for April 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

subcategory

Liz, you removed Viktor Petrik from Pseudoscientists, but you forgot to put him into a subcategory of Category:Advocates_of_pseudoscience. I have placed him into Category:Pseudoscientific physicists. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_22#Pseudoscientific_fooers. I'll comment there. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, you saw that, Enric. Category:Advocates of pseudoscience is for subcategories only, not individuals. If you can find an appropriate subcategory for Viktor Petrik, that would be great. I'm sure that over the next week, most of the individuals who were in Category:Pseudoscientists will be placed in a suitable subcategory. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Liz - I see you are racing through the old Category:Pseudoscientists and deleting said categorisation per the ruling. I'm truly impressed by the efficiency with which you are doing it, but saddened that you are not reclassifying said pseudoscientists at the same time. But that is an aside to my real question, how on earth are you doing it so efficiently and well and so fast??? I'm gobsmacked because it almost appears magical, and I'm sure I couldn't do it so well or so quickly. What is your secret? ;). -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Roxy the dog, HotCat allows an editor to add and remove multiple categories quickly. I am going to recategorize those individuals who were in Category:Pseudoscientists to their appropriate categories (they are all listed, alphabetically, in my Contributions). Some are already listed in subcategories that fall under Category:Advocates of pseudoscience so I don't believe they need an additional category. I was actually surprised that there weren't more individuals in the Pseudoscientists category, I had expected at least a hundred or two but there were only 47 individuals.
I knew that the Pseudoscientists category was going to be either deleted or merged with Advocates of pseudoscience. If the category had simply been deleted, there would be no record of who had been in it. It turned out that Pseudoscientists category history was merged with Advocates of pseudoscience category history (and then deleted) instead but then those individuals would have to be removed from that category.
I want to go through the list thoughtfully but my Internet time is very limited this weekend. If you or anyone else want to help with the recategorizing, please look through my Contributions (the individuals are all tagged with edit summary: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists). The new possible categories are still very much in dispute (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific fooers) so it's going to take some time to straighten this out. But since there are editors who are very focused on this PS area, I'm sure it will be taken care of. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been away for a few days, so I'm late thanking you for your reply, and your comments on the fringe theories noticeboard. Only 47 ! I'm surprised too. It isn't as bad as I'd thought. Thanks again. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why am I not in the least surprised...

…that you know and support Anne DeL? Birds of a feather, in the kiest sense. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There are several awesome Wikipedia editors who are named Anne or Anna. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mail

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

Thanks, Liz. The nomination has been seconded. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, ```Buster Seven. She deserves it! Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Dear Liz, thanks for pointing me out to WikiProject Christianity! By the way I see my CfDed's being mentioned there anyway, so is that perhaps a sort of automated process? Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They are an active WikiProject, so I'm glad you got in touch. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Busy

Away at the Wikipedia Conference USA in New York City. Never been around this many WP editors before, there are hundreds here! Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Got to ask Newyorkbrad my question on BLP concerns and Category:Pseudoscientists so I'm happy! Turns out that categories and infoboxes are a minefield of possible BLP violations. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #111

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Essay

I have seen your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.240.180.58#Comment "your version even an hour after you're done polishing it up. It's just the nature of the wikiworld, nobody, even the Editors who create articles, "owns" them." and Buddistic-associated: "but never get too attached to them because they may not be there tomorrow." A also noted that the editor replied: "You nailed it 100% ! I totally agree with you." I think there are many editors especially newbies to whom such words would be of interest. Perhaps you may consider to incorporate them into a new or an existing essay? I think you found just the very right words. Dmatteng (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very flattering, Dmatteng, I never thought of it that way. But you can't be a long-term editor at Wikipedia without cultivating detachment. Otherwise, it's just heart-breaking sometimes! ;-)
Indeed so, and most important that you have found the right words. I'm really serious about the essay, I think it might help many editors and reduce some of the edit warring that is going around.
I also would like to ask your opinion about my situation. I think if unrelated editors could rewrite UE Boom article per GA standard that would be a desirable situation for myself and for the editors who say that some of my edits were promotional. Interestingly, even when I have written a boxing article, the same sentiment was initially voiced. I have no idea however how to make it happen, any advise? Dmatteng (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I have very limited internet access for the next week but I'll look over the article when I can. I mainly do gnomish work, and I haven't brought up an article to GA standards, I tend to work in a lot of different areas than focus on specific articles. But I'll help if I can. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it. Currently there are 97 GA articles in the Brands project. I think HTC One (M7) and BlackBerry_Bold_9700 are both good examples, and PowerBook 100 (FA) too. Dmatteng (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello,

You can help determine consensus by commenting at the RfC at Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates#RfC:_Discipline_issues_in_high_school. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For noticing and initiating action on the misogynistic DYK hook today. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, EvergreenFir. I saw that Necrophilia was in the DYK pipeline to appear soon and I just happened to check right after it was posted. I don't know how it passed up through approval levels. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #112

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

General authority deletions

I am disappointed you think I nominated those articles for deletion because of something personal I have with JPL. I nominated them for deletion because they were poorly sourced, and sourced mostly from non-peer-reviewed pages associated with the LDS church. I didn't even bother looking at who created them. Several of them which have been nominated were written by people other than JPL. JPL has completely blown this out of proportion by using words like "vexatious", "antagonistic", "bigoted", and his general assumption that this is part of some great affront against him and his faith. pbp 04:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Read "Poorly SOurced" as "sourced with Latter-day Saints sources". In PBP's view Latter-day Saints are not allowed to be considered creators of "reliable sources" and must always allow others to control the definitions and discussions that occur about us. Vexatious was not out of proportion when he claimed an article with 4 sources had none. The PROB was not just for no "reliable sources", but for no sources at all. There were sources. The fact he has not nominated that article for deltion again although he seems to be a pro at doing so, shows that in all likelihood he knows the person will pass notability guidelines as the significant contributor to academia he is. DO not be fooled. PBP's agenda would deprive of their own voice of a significant community, and is at odds with the general principal of Wikipedia not favoring one narrative over others. He tries to couch it in the language of "indepdence", but only accepts certain forms of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • When someone declares that sources from a given faith are "dubois" it clearly has become part of a great effort against the faith. When someone spends as much time trying to destory Latter-day Saint related articles, with very little evidence that they ever nominate any other group of articles for deletion, suspicion of motives is not a far fetched conclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If your notability stems from working for an organization, ANY sources connected with that organization are dubious at assessing your notability. JPL is currently on a massive SOAPBOX at the moment, stemming from IDONTLIKEIT on articles he and others have created that have rightfully been nominated for deletion. Just ignore him. pbp 00:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If PBP really believed that, he would be going after lots of articles on univeristy professors. His constant calls of "just ignore him", and essentially attacking anyone who sticks up for me is very rude to say the least. Nor is this a recent campaign by PBP, but a long standing one. He used very similar tactics in his failed attempt to delete the article on Patricia T. Holland. He also used maximum in insulting and combative language in that attack. He has a long record of trying to use inflamatory langauge in getting things deleted, and in delibertely insulting people in the process. Evidently he thinks he should be respected, but should be allowed to insult other people with impunity. The fact of the matter is the way he phrases things are calls for excluding all sources from a given religion, and is thus very objectionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • JPL, by the standards of what you consider "an attack", "inflamatory" (sic yours), and "objectionable", your actions are attacks, inflammatory, and objectionable. You have hyperbolized almost everything I have said and done on the topic. Telling people to ignore you is not an attack on anybody. And the Holland AfD is hardly germane here; she wasn't (couldn't be) a member of the Seventy and the AfD was long enough though for consensus to have changed since then. Also, I just re-read my comments, all of which concerned the sourcing of the article and none of which got personal. You should not have been offended by them. pbp 01:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
      • If you do not see why your comments were offensive, you really need to take a lesson in what is offensive. "Doesn't appear to be anything non-LDS about her; and her only claim to notability is that she was married to the head honcho at BYU. PROD declined by creator, claiming that "Being a member of the Young Women General Presidency makes her notable". Sorry, it doesn't, there is no notability guideline that says that; there isn't even an article on the Young Women General Presidency. Having references that aren't LDS-related make something notable " 1- The opening implies there must be "something non-LDS" about every source. The way it is worded is not clearly a reference to sources. 2- "head honcho" is just not the right way to establish anything other than a rude tone. 3- the use of the term "LDs related" as the needed threshold for references is just way too broad, and has not been defined enough to make any sense. It is relevant because she was one of the General Officers of the Church, and the backgroudn debate is whether or not they are notable. It is also illustrative of the extent to which you chose to be combative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
        • That is no more combative than some of the comments you've made in my regard in the last 48 hours. "Head honcho" is informal, but not pejorative. As for 1 and 3, it doesn't have to be every source, but there do have to be some sources independent of the organization through which she established her notability. It's unfortunate that you don't like how GNG is interpreted in the case of LDS officials, but that's just the way GNG is. It's no different than it would be for any other organizations. And OMG, we're talking about an AfD from 2012! pbp 03:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

seeking clarity - hoping you can offer some

Hello Liz - I'm a fan of your participation here as you know. I'm somewhat upset right now and trying to stay calm. As you know I am representing directly Deepak Chopra regarding the NPOV violations on his article. Although there have been many harassing behaviors, the over all result of my activity here has been very positive - speaking well to how Wikipedia can work to resolve issues.

However, I've just been hit with an AE - with the offending behavior being that I am an SPA. I'm really confused as to how WP:BIOSELF becomes an SPA issue. I've contributed and worked with a number of editors on the page, including SlimVirgin and have contributed media to Wikimedia commons to help the editors. I'm hoping you can give me a little clarity as to what is happening, or maybe even comment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SAS81

SAS81 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #113

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2014



Headlines
Highlights  · Single page edition

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: A last short needed look

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [8]. Settling this there, n that way, would end the issues raised in inordinate length above. Consider a final persuasive comment, on any matter you wish? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 13:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT, Liz, have to ask your assistance

I will post here in a few minutes, links to a discussion. I would propose you review, and then,

Extended content
you recuse because of our relationship (limited though it is), but instead that you identify a 2-3 Admins that you respect, that are your peers, to become involved (based on your perceptions of the fundamental issues, see next). I will also direct another Admin or two to this page, and you can feel free, as you need, to discuss matters among all of you. After reviewing, you can decide what the best course might be to proceed—taking the involved Admin aside privately for a word, telling me to elevate it to some conflict-resolving body, etc. (or tell me I am wrong and to stuff it). Your call, as this proceeds—yours to decide when you should ping the admin involved, so he can argue his case as he wishes. Bottom line, I want a fair outcome, and with a seemingly biased admin entering the situation at this article, it distorts matters vis-a-vis power and process. This should not take place. Cheers, look to next post. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
— Admins all three, please, as time permits, acquaint yourselves with one another. You are three folks that I very much admire, each for the character I have seen you exhibit in resolving conflicts. (And not always in my favor.) Here follows the request, and the story. The goal is not to persuade, but to find the right way forward.
  • REQUEST — That you each identify 2-3 fellow admins that you believe can review a situation regarding a fellow Admin's decision to involve himself in a content issue on the side of one party of possible prior acquaintance. The point is to avoid embarrassment or sanction (and wasted time and ill feeling) that might come if this is taken to a review board. The goal is to ID administrators that I do not know, so there is no question of my canvassing or trying to persuade. On the other hand, having you ask this of others ensures that it will more likely get acted on, in some reasonable time scale, and it avoids the matter falling prey to COIs if otherwise reviewed. (If each of you ask three, and only 1/3 respond, that is still three independent perspectives on the matter.)
  • After your designates review the matter, let them, at the relevant Talk pages, give their advice to all involved, whatever it might be. If I am wrong, I can be told. If the Admin that has involved himself in the content dispute should recuse himself, that can come as a gentle word in the ear. (I'm just praying that this is decisive and wastes no further time, one way or the other.)
  • PREFACE — I have had no ill relations with the admin in question, prior to today. In fact, I have been a fan of his efforts, and have periodically posted to his page, when there have been matters that I thought he might have an interest in. Interaction, but no close working relationship or friendship.
  • CONTEXT — An article I edited last December led to a 3RR block. It was another case of an editor, a fly-by, perceiving vandalism when I rewrote the lede, coming in and reverting, and me being impatient, and reverting him back. This is only relevant for what happened next.
An editor with whom I have longstanding differences of opinion about editing came onto the NP article for the first time. This editor, the "visiting editor" I will call him, assisted in the block process and then proceeded to undo my work while blocked, editing for three days and removing almost all indications that the article had problems (including, inexplicably and without discussion, a "factual accuracy" tag predating me, from March 2011). Admittedly, quality was added to the article. But more clearly, he put his stamp on the article, focusing on creating a lede to point the article in the direction he wished it to go (after removing mine), and then creating a second introductory section, Classes, that provided guiding definitions for the article. It is with his Classes section, some of the lede content, and further issues predating the "visiting" editor, that are the crux of the content issue needing to be discussed. However, then, as quickly as he alit, this editor ceased editing/interest in the article. That was 5-6 months ago.
I have continued to try to edit at the article, but the changes the "visiting" editor, long departed, had made were constraining. At the same time, in the article, there are large sections of text, pre-dating my work, that are completely unreferenced and biased. And there are other topics that (for instance appear in the related Encycl Britannica article) that are completely absent from the WP article. Bottom line, to make the article useful, and high quality, bold edits are required—major changes need to be made, including to the opening definitions section. However, given the past history at the article, including the contentious relationship between the "visiting" editor creating the material, I have not felt comfortable just beginning to edit afresh. Rather, I felt I needed some community discussion, so that the article could move forward in a way all agreed to (and I was confident that if I could stimulate the discussion, the support would be there for revising definitions and allowing bold edits).
  • THIS WEEK'S PRECIPITATING EVENTS — After nibbling inoffensively in May around the article, alone (no other editors in sight), in June I wrote a long Talk section explaining my position—that I could not edit freely, given the constraints of text in place, and history—and posted to Talk, and placed article and section tags to highlight the areas that were problematic. The article tags noted citation issues, and asked Expert attention, and suggested unbalanced viewpoint.
Almost immediate after I posted the Talk and tags, the "visiting" editor cut short his hiatus, and returned to the article, his first visit since December. He began arguing against changes, and against the tags. I remained civil, and after a short time, made clear, the matters were not for he and I to resolve. The point of the tags was to solicit broad community opinion. I asked that he not edit the article until the discussion was over. He continued to press for removal of the tags—in particular, at the one week point. By this time, only one other editor had visited and commented. (He also did begin quick editing again, addressing issues I had called attention to in the Talk, but avoiding any major changes—just improving appearance, and so muddling up the discussion.) He did not remove the tags, but bristled at my refusing to remove them—I stated the intent to give discussion at least a month, so outsiders could join in.
All of the foregoing is context; none is directly relevant to this request. But you may find this makes it easier to understand what you see when you visit and read the Talk.
  • ARRIVAL AT ARTICLE OF AN ADMIN — Yesterday when I came on, I found that an Admin that I had otherwise esteemed had come to the article, and did limited editing, essentially just removing tags. In particular, he removed the Expert needed tag (as well as various section tags throughout). When I found this, I went to him, cheerfully, and asked how came to the article, did he know the "visiting" editor, etc. My comments to him were affirming of my past respect, but did express the foregoing, and surprise at his sudden appearance and at his editing without engaging at Talk (where it was clear there was a "change-of-course" discussion going on).
I will present a link for you to see this discussion, in a moment. The long and short is that the conversation, while remaining initially cordial, became pointed, and eventually was called to a halt. The crux of the issue was that he refused to reply to the direct question of whether he was "called in" by the "visiting" editor, with whom I had the content conflict. (A review of talk showed 17 interactions between them, from Jan-May of this year, so there was a basis for asking.) The Admin sidestepped the matter repeatedly, and instead attempted to engage me regarding specifics of the content matter. (All of this is laid out, clearly, links in a moment.)
As much as I esteemed his medical writing work, the Admin was not a person with any past involvement or apparent expertise in the article. So while I respectfully pointed him to the issues I already raised, and I provided him with substantial support for my position (in references to things stated, but also with new material), I declined to proceed in a longer discussion regarding content. The discussion ended with me repeating a pair of requests: that in good faith, he revert his Expert-needed tag removal, and then that he recuse himself from further involvement on the article as having a conflict of interest, based on prior relationship with the other editor involved. This request was repeated thrice, and he declined to address it each time. This is where the matter stands; I have not reverted his tags, and the article discussion is now further stymied by his arrival and side-taking.
  • RESTATED REQUEST — That you each try to identify 2-3 fellow Admins that you believe can review this situation, and can advise all involved. I will not know who they are, and will only respond when their advice is given (wherever they choose to give it). I might be told, "out of luck, no rules against such COI." Or the other Admin might quietly recuse himself, not a word spoken. Or a suggestion might be made to the appropriate neutral arbitration venue. Or the tag removal might be reverted, and the disruptive Talk archived, and the discussion of article restarted. I clearly have a hope of an outcome, but will leave in hands of those experienced, to assess, and make decisions. In particular, though, if possible, would ask the group of Admins that do take interest, work out among themselves what needs to be done. The goal is decisive response, and not a long back and forth argument where all parties just rehash history, and continue talking past each other.
Having given you an oral history, here now are the links:
  • Article, at time I asked for community involvement, via Tags and Talk: [9]
  • Article after return of departed, conflict-involving fellow editor [10] — note changes to the "Classes" section, the section at which the on-going Talk discussion was aimed
  • Article after Admins's involvement yesterday (untagging, mostly) [11]
  • The Admin's revert of the Expert needed tag (only explanation, 4 words) [12]
  • Initial admin post to article Talk, agreeable and innocuous [13]
  • My response to the Admin at his Talk page [14] — so far so good
  • My formal summary of how things proceeded from there, beginning near the top with the "I am writing…" indent. Feel free to fully ignore the manifold content issues that rear their heads. It is editor and admin choices that are the question: [15].
  • And, not for the faint of heart, here is the full back and forth between myself and the Admin, where you will have to jump up and down between 3 entries (using time stamps to see what was said, in what order): [16] and [17] and [18]
  • And for completeness, here is the initial post I made, asking to open the direction of the article up for wider discussion (so the loggerheads between the "visiting" editor and I could be broken). Reading downward leads to full discussion, but it is mostly Le Prof vs. "visiting editor", talking past each other, neither yielding: [19]
(For a quick primer on the content matter, read the two large block BOXES about half way down — these are the two sections of Encyclopedia Britannica that are comparable to this article. Then, scroll up to a bright green box with a nested quote; this is a summary statement of the content issues. But no need, unless interested.)
I append the details hesitantly, because what I want is proscribed, and clear: a look at what we each did leading up to the arrival of the Admin, and then friendly if pointed advice to get us back on track, via gentle coaxing, article protection, reversion, ArbComm, whatever it takes. Bottom line is that I have only a little more time here, and for this. Before this, the freight train was idling on the mainline; this has put it on a sidetrack, and perhaps one it will never leave. Help, please.
Latest olive branches to the Admin, to try to move it along through direct engagement, see here [20] and [21]. Cheers, Please, @Liz Read! Talk!, @Adjwilley, @The Bushranger, RSVP here (after any necessary discussion without me)? Merci. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Le Prof (here, if you have forgotten, [22]) Leprof 7272 (talk)
@User:Liz, you can ignore this preceding, and any later references to the same (delete/archive as you please). For better or worse, matter has settled down. Foregoing non-expert Admin issue: he eventually claimed no bias favouring editor friend, I A'dGF and apologized, but he departed without restoring Expert tag he deleted. Little outside attention was generated, some acceptance of need for article change resulted on part of other resistant editor. But only 1 expert came in week Expert tag was up, none came since. So 2 conflicting editors remain, and no recognition of fundamental concerns leading to earlier content standoff. (Evidence for no change: other editor WP:RTP'd article Talk without discussion; offered to decide which section I should edit; etc.; TYVM, sir, but no to peer oversight.) So, call it fragile peace. Bottom line: WP community proved disinterested despite high article importance—neither Wikiproject experts nor independent Admins responded—so I'll give it one last go. Next time trouble erupts, I'll ping all, and simply depart the article. Leaving a couple of important articles in good shape was the goal I had before retiring here. But cost can get too high. Feel free, remove color/everything here, after you read. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian topics

Dear Liz, would you be willing to continue our conversation on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_23#Category:Judeo-Christian topics? Thanks in advance, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #115

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 11:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_6&oldid=1074673157"