Jump to content

User talk: Liz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WebspinnerLlewellyn (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 30 April 2016 (→deleted article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It's spring!

This page was last edited or modified by WebspinnerLlewellyn (talk).


Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
The Signpost
24 December 2024
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.



While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel

Welcome!

Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!
Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you bawdy shard-borne hedge-pig!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you frothy ill-nurtured haggard.

Hmm never seen this template before, but in my opinion its abusive and a personal attack and its should be discontinued.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was funny, Keithbob, and placed it on my Talk Page myself. The "epiphets" are so ludicrous and silly, I can't believe anyone would take them personally. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Quantico (TV series) page vandalized by Indian and Australian edit warriors

Here is your message to me: Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 1 February 2016

Just to refresh some people memories about collaboration. In 1930-1940 the USA collaborated with the Soviet Union by building around 1500 factories in the USSR and with German Nazi - by supplying them strategic resources. As a result, the USA covered up genocide of East Ukraine in 1932-1933, that killed between 4 to 6 millions of Ukrainians and in the midst of it established diplomatic relationship with the USSR. It's also ignored persecutions of Jews in Nazi Germany until 1938. And even then refused to accept Jewish refuges to the USA until the end of war. Without this collaboration II World War would never happened. However, the USA made a lot of money from it and even took as a payment grains confiscated from Ukrainian farmers who where left to starve to death. And now the USA helps Putin regime by allowing Russian propaganda TV channel RT to broadcast in the US and by creating several American TV series on ABC and CBS networks where Ukrainians portrayed as terrorists. Viva to collaboration! For those don't know much about the world - Ukraine is fighting a hybrid war with Russia since March 2014.

To be clear, I don't assume that people have a good faith. At least a majority of them. Otherwise we would see both Clintons, GWB and B.H.O'Bama and several hundreds more serving a life sentence. You, for example, found to be uncivil my respond to a post of individual who vandalized several times my edit about Criticism on "Quantico". Here what is about:

Quantico in the series premiere «Run» mentioned on 34:44 min that the CIA think that the terrorist act on Grand Central Station is tied to Ukrainian nationalists. This part has really offended Ukrainian people who are fighting a proxy war in the East Ukraine with Russia. [39] By a strange coincidence, 2 other American TV series from CBS - Elementary[40] and Madam Secretary[41] also portrait Ukrainian nationalist as terrorists. It raised questions about the reasons behind it - to portrait people who are fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine as terrorists.

However, you have no issue with civility of my opponent who posted crap like this: "So, you're a troll. Grow up, guy-who-won't-share-his-own-name. Alex|The|Whovian?" Who are you Liz and why are you afraid to state your real full name? 03:22 UTC, February 1, 2016 Socrat1

So Liz, it's been a week since you deleted my post from My Talk page playing a god who know all better. And again playing a god claiming to be too busy to answer. Maybe it's time for you to quit working for a government? It may get you finally some time to do good for people - not for Evil... 05:02 UTC, February 9, 2016 Socrat1
I thought not acknowledging your ranting about evil government conspiracy theories was preferable to blocking you as a troll. Try focusing on improving articles rather than posting on my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 13:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Civil calling me a troll. I guess that is the level of a wiki. What if I'm a whistleblower in the case involving the state police contractor and the cover-up of this case by the state and federal law-enforcement agency like the FBI, IG, DoJ, AG and US congressman and US senators, including but limited to SA Chris Cieplik, SA Ron Offutt (FBI), John Larson, Richard Blumenthal, Joe Lieberman, the state Auditors of Public Accounts (whistleblower office), the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (at the time) and his right hand assistant in the whistleblower department multimillionaire Stephen R. Park and by mr. Blumenthal friend's company from the city of Omaha, where mr. Dick spent so much time since his childhood and who Dick helped to secure state contract back in 1995, while working as the AG? And of course it doesn't matter that I brought to the USA the military technology that is worth trillions of dollars where the US was decades behind the USSR. But I'm guessing I will still be a troll for a government servants. That is the reality and explains why people killed Jesus. It always been smarter and beneficial to serve a government, than the country and the people. And to your little knowledge, if you had read something before deleting my addition, I was adding a part to the Quantico TV series page. 03:49 UTC, February 10, 2016 Socrat1
Please stop posting on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you asked me to do so by leaving a message on my page. Here is a part of your message: ...If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz. Were you dishonest then? How about restoring my post on my page, and removing your dishonest message from my page? Can you do this? 04:14 UTC, February 10, 2016 Socrat1
You have more than had your say, Socrat1. Enough. Stay off this talk page and do some productive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #194

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

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us and the AfroCROWD initiative at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign.

12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St

The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Bonus upcoming event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednesday, February 17)

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

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. The new format RfC is more civilised than the first time (nobody got blocked this time around) but it's still a gauntlet. One where you hand out the clubs yourself beforehand. Again, thank you for your support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Paskoff page

Liz-

Can we have a discussion on why my page was deleted? This was a long process to even get it setup and approved by Wiki to be on. It she my work and career very seriously and had plenty of references and external links to support this page. I'm not sure why it was deleted without a proper discussion or notification.

I'd love to have a conversation about it in hopes of reinstatement.

Thank you.

Scott Paskoff

That process would be made easier if you created an account. That helps communication rather than conversing with an IP address. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Atmapriyananda

You zapped this as an unsourced BLP, but just before that I had added a source and removed the BLP-prod. It's thin, but a vice-chancellor is presumably notable, and it seems to be a real university, with an article. Actually, Dweller had already deleted it while I was organizing the cite-web, so the Swami has had rather an up-and-down morning! JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JohnCD, it looks like the article has been recreated so good luck with improving it. Liz Read! Talk! 12:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I restored it, because that's the version you deleted, though no doubt the cache was showing you the unsourced version. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird that I deleted the article that had been prodded for so long (since 24 January) at exactly the same time as you were adding a citeweb! Sorry if you were confused by whatever weird error message the software gave you. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, somehow that article was deleted 3 times in 8 minutes. Liz Read! Talk! 13:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullatif Ghazi Abdullah

Hello Liz I made a Wikipedia of the person above and it has been deleted by you. It mentioned that the reference that was given did not mention the person and that the person may not even exist. I recently got another reference from a news media site talking about this person showing that he exist but you have already deleted the wiki. Can you please check this [1] as it mentions Abdullatif Ghazi Abdullah. You may need to translate it as it is in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetsimeta (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wetsimeta, I can restore this as a draft page but it still needs additional references. But you would get additional time to work on the article. Let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please if can do that then that will be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetsimeta (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Wetsimeta, you can find the article now at Draft:Abdullatif Ghazi Abdullah. Liz Read! Talk! 13:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.arriyadiyah.com/node/959466/%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%88%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%82%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A

Deletion review for Ashley Renee Jones

DanWOrr has asked for a deletion review of Ashley Renee Jones. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Cryptic. I regularly check the deletion log for articles that are immediately recreated after being deleted and this was one of them today. The recreated article was identical to the original article that had been deleted so I deleted it with the same A7 rationale.
I made an error though with this article though because I normally tag questionable articles and then have a different admin choose to delete it or not. But I neglected to check the box on the Twinkle interface that places a tag only and so I inadvertently deleted it myself. This has happened to me a few times and it's something that I try to avoid. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have got email

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.

DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akana

Hey Liz,

could you please delete the page Akana, I need it for the Article SOA Software, because the company was renamed in March 2015 to Akana. Thank you in advance!

Best regards.--MainFrame (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to make a proposal at WP:RFD since this involves deleting a redirect or go to WP:RM since it involves an article move. Liz Read! Talk! 12:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #195

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

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Thanks

I appreciate your help mopping up the "minor spill" my boldness in userifying that article caused. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Qubic

Thank you. Now, I want something else. :) Could you also move talk:Qubic to talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe? (Should I have requested that as a separate operation? I kinda thought they'd be done together. ) Jeh (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page should have moved as well, Jeh, I know I had that box checked when I moved the page. Since there is content on both Talk:Qubic and Talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe pages, a merge would be more appropriate than a page deletion but I don't know how to do a page merge. I think you should go to ask another admin who has more page moving experience or go to WP:RM and ask for help there. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no content at talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe. It just appears that there is because that page is a redirect to talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe (Atari console game). That redirect was created when I moved the original 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe to 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe (Atari console game). So it redirects to the talk page that belongs to the Atari article. If you will look at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:3-D_Tic-Tac-Toe&redirect=no you will see it. I"d think that a "move over redirect" would work for the talk page just as it did for the article page. Meanwhile I will put a CSD tag on the talk page, for documentation if nothing else. Thank you for your help and consideration! Jeh (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin got to it. Thanks again! Jeh (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Seraphim, Inc.

I don't know how this PROD got by me; subject is clearly notable as producer of multiple notable films, and only legit question is whether there should be an independent article or merger to its principal, the very notable Clive Barker. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done! Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing talk page

Hi Liz, last year you added a category tag to a talk page archive[1]. We don't normally categorize talk pages/archives in that way (and most of the archives of that particular talk page are not categorized). I think (e.g. for consistency and to make it easier to detect those talk pages that have been inadvertently categorized by an editor omitting the extra ":") that talk pages/archives should not be categorized like that. Do you agree? DexDor (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags from a couple of talk page archive pages. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RD

Liz, hi. Just FYI, Vote X has made some very uncomplimentary remarks about FPaS in their edit summaries during their recent postings to the Reference Desks - you can check the page history if you want to see the details. I'm not replying on the main talk page to prevent further inflammation of the situation there. Tevildo (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, Tevildo, the danger of weighing in an opinion on an area of Wikipedia that one doesn't frequent is that one is unaware of all of the circumstances that editors are referring to. Thanks for filling me in. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, also regarding WP:RD and about your comment here: [2] - my intent was not to critique any user, my intent was to notify. There have already been several thousands of words spent over the last month or so discussing this long-term semi-protection, and even a loose consensus against the move in my assessment, but nothing has changed. If someone unilaterally makes a move that affects the entire ref desk, then they can be named. I linked those users only out of clarity and politeness. I am mostly active at the ref desks, so I don't know as much about WP culture and what goes where, but I thought the ref-desk talk page was as good a place as any for such a notice. I am in the process of crafting a post for AN to draw more admin attention to what I see as a problem at the ref desk that needs more admin involvement to be resolved. If you like, I can notify you if/when I post it there. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SemanticMantis, it seems like there is more history to this discussion than I was aware of. It would be great if you could notify me. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you luck. While I could easily be wrong, I think a problem you'll find is that your views on how to deal with problematic editors may not be the same as those who frequent AN. For example, you may consider [3] an example of a good way to engage with an obvious troll, but I'm not sure AN will see it the same way. P.S. To be clear I'm talking about the whole thread not just Wnt's response. I actually saw the thread before the editor started talking about banning blacks from voting and it was fairly obvious what was going. Actually even from the first post although I only saw it after replies hence why I didn't delete it. P.P.S. That's if you get much response. Unfortunately from what I've seen while AN is a bit better than AN//I, it still becoming increasingly common that you get one or two editors saying stuff but nothing really happens, even in cases where IMO it's clearer there's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz and @Nil Einne:. Actually, since I won't get around to pushing this to AN until at least next week (real paid work calls:), either of you may like to look at or possibly contribute to my very rough draft in my sandbox here [4]. Maybe this a bad idea, I don't want it to turn into some huge referendum on trolling policy or specific users, I just want more admins to weigh in on the long-term semi-protection. Indeed it might not get much attention or resolve anything, but I feel like I have to try something, or accept defeat by a few users who seem to not respect our principles of openness. I'll accept consensus for closing the ref desks to the public if I see it. Right now it seem to me that FPAS is really dug in, and no other admins feel like fighting with him. I don't like that because it's not how we're supposed to operate, but if enough admins can agree that this is the way it has to be, I'll concede the point. The short version of my discontent is that I see WP:RD as a public service, and it really bugs me when another user disrupts that service, apparently without consensus. I know it doesn't make it count any more, but I'm one of the desk's more active users who provides many many RS references per week, I almost always AGF and use civil tone, and I've never been reprimanded for anything. The same cannot be said for some of the most vocal proponents of closed ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 16: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim
Feb 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Tuesday February 16, 5:30pm: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for an evening of social Wikipedia training and editing at the Guggenheim, with a workshop given by the Art+Feminism project to prepare for next month's major campaign, and a tour and edit-a-thon of Photo-Poetics: An Anthology.

5:30pm - 8:30pm at Sackler Center Media Lab, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1071 Fifth Avenue; enter through 89th Street staff entrance
Wednesday February 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

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

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

We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, and welcome input from community members on the sorts of projects the chapter should support through both volunteer and budgetary efforts.

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

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

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

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One talk this month will be on use of Wikipedia press passes for photographers.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

block user:86.134.166.234

Please block user:86.134.166.234 before my WP:AIV report turns stale. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5D4A:3D80:F3:91B (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #196

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

Wikidata weekly summary #196

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

Hi Liz.  (For the sake of full disclosure, I just want to mention that I'm asking one or two other administrators this same question.)  In a Wikipedia article about a motion picture, how closely can the plot summary duplicate the plot summary from the Turner Classic Movies website.  Is it OK if it reads basically the same with some words changed here and there?  Or would that be a copyright violation?  I'm asking because I noticed that (as of this writing [11:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)]) the Plot section of the Wake of the Red Witch article is extremely similar to the plot summary for that film on the website TCM.COM (click READ THE FULL SYNOPSIS).  (There is actually a reference to the TCM website at the end of the Plot section.)   I doubt that it's a problem, because the Wikipedia article has been that way since December of 2008; and I imagine that if there were a problem it would have been detected and corrected by now.  Nevertheless, I'm curious.  Thanks; I appreciate your time.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard27182, I'd go to Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations for guidance. It looks like the first step is bring up the issue on the article talk page, add a copyright tag (with corresponding URL) if the situation isn't resolved quickly and consider going to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems where there are editors and admins more experienced in copyright issues than I am. Liz Read! Talk! 15:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz.  Thank you for your reply and your very good suggestions.  They are very much appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Heyo! I was reading old RFA's when i came across you. Wanted to wave hi to another Jersey person~! Wintery Time on the Grassland (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Winterysteppe! I'm not from the East Coast but I have called it home for quite a few years now. I guess at some point, I'll think of myself as a native. Liz Read! Talk! 12:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the...

Just looking through Rudeboy789's contribs when tagging his article for deletion and...wow.

Fascinating contrast with his message on my page... (I've never declared my gender on Wikipedia.) Reported to RVAN, in case you hadn't already. Blythwood (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just took it as trolling. I don't know why he picked me as I don't think we'd had any prior contact on Wikipedia. He must have had other user accounts. I just delete and move on unless these kinds of posts continue. Liz Read! Talk! 14:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was (when not being creepy) spamming with articles for a removal company - one, according to Google, not notable apart from one of its former employees murdering someone. Blocked now. Blythwood (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Deleted Charles Hurt page

Can I recreate the page for Charles Hurt (journalist)? He is quite notable: -former D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, covered Biden, Clinton, Obama campagins in 2008 -Drudge Report staffer -Washington Times columnist -New York Post columnist -Fox News guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Marquis de Faux, I'm just seeing your message now. You can recreate the article but this time save it in draft space Draft:Charles Hurt where it won't be subject to speedy deletion. Also, try to address the concerns that caused the original version to be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Graceffa

I'd love to hear your explanation for removing sourced content here. Curro2 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an additional statement, added later and not included in the reference. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May i suggest archiving your talk page?

I saw your talk page and maybe it needs archiving. Winterysteppe (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always keep the current month and the previous month. You should go talk to some editors/admins who keep YEARS worth of talk page messages, sometimes going back to 2012. I don't think having January and February is a great deal-breaker. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. haha. And also Years? dang. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across a user talk page that has posts from 2008! Seven years worth of messages. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Winterysteppe, check out User talk:Medeis. This isn't rare. And I get more annoyed with editors who blank their talk page every time a message is posted. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well... thats is cool. and yeah, blanking is annoying. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2016

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in January 2016.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #197

Wikidata weekly summary #186

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

Deletion of Tenex Software Solutions

Hi Liz-

I'm curious as to why you believe this page is an attack? All information provided has been accurately sourced from legitimate news sources. The events that occurred in Ohio and Florida were notable news events in their local communities and have affected how other cities determine if they will engage with new election systems or not.

Thank you for your time.

Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was CSD tagged as an attack page and when I looked at the content, it seemed focused only on criticism of the company. An article can not solely be criticism, there can only be a section concerning criticism, legal problems or other controversy. If you want me to userfy the article so you can work on creating a balanced article, I can do that. But attack pages aren't allowed in user space either so I might have to delete some content if it is entirely negative. Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that WP:CSD#G10 did not apply to this page. There may have been NPOV issues but that is not a reason to delete without discussion. G10 is primarily about BLPs and it was reliably sourced which also means G10 does not apply. I had started on balancing out the article removing alot of the undue weight on the issues but I am not sure if it was reverted after I left it for the night. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, McMatter, as long as you are not the creator of the article, you can remove a CSD notice that you believe is not applied correctly. I'm pretty sure that if I just restore the article, it will get tagged again but, like I said to Steven, I'd be willing to userfy it or move it into Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed the CSD tag earlier, did you look into the history? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
McMatter, I did look at the edit history and your tag removal wasn't mentioned in the edit summary. I have restored the article at Draft:Tenex Software Solutions and I hope you and Stevenjohnson14 can work on making the article more balanced (see WP:NPOV) and not just an articled detailing complaints with the company. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does (Reverted 1 edit by Ravikallem (talk): Not an Attack page. (TW)) [5] mean to you? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you want at this point. I restored a completely negative article so you could continue to work on it to make it more balanced which I believed was the reason why you came to my talk page. I think our business is done here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7

Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lilou Mace

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lilou Mace, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Just remmeber that User:Serendipodous/Top25 isn't an actual page; it's basically a sandbox. Nothing you see on it has any relevance. Serendipodous 09:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn (2015)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381111/

Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. Plus, the movie can be found at Brooklyn (film) which a more likely search term than Brooklyn (2015). Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The test is not "reliable source" but "plausible source". These are not implausible, terms that readers are unlikely to search for, these are actual terms that one reader, me, has actually searched for. Brooklyn (2015) is, by a country mile the most common disambiguator used on the internet. You make implausible assumptions of readers. I just typed Brooklyn into Google - top of search = Brooklyn (2015) - IMDb. From here the most plausible cut and paste to avoid the faff of Brooklyn (disambiguation) is Brooklyn (2015). What exactly is the sake of making redirects if not to facilitate access to knowledge? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

On behalf of my fellow new page patrollers I thank you. For claiming I have created valid articles, I thank you and now I'm going to run away and create hoaxes and empty pages mwahahaha...um. no- Sorry, the excitement is going to my head. I do thank you. It is nice not to have to sit and wait to see the article get patrolled. I'm the impatient kind and hate waiting...And the New page list doesn't need to be longer. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 00:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an easy call, Antiqueight. As another rather new admin once said to me, "I pick the low-hanging fruit!" Meaning, at this point, I'm leaving the difficult requests to admins who frequent WP:PERM and other noticeboards. Once I am weathered and experienced, I'll make more of the tough decisions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean...

"community"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. I thought it was the simplest way of pointing to what I meant. But I see now it could easily be confusing. You typed "committee"; I replaced it with "community" then reverted myself. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I did intend to type community but things get dicey when one thinks about editing another editor's comments. I appreciate you pointing out my error on my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 14:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Marcos edits of Aniseseed

Thanks for the comments, but as you can see I'm being bullied by the majority into submission. What do I do? Any advice or help will be appreciated Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 06:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word limit

Hi, thanks for your post [6]. Sorry, this rule had escaped my attention - I've cut my statement down a bit and will cut more to make it under 500 words. But are you able to clarify the "statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words" guidance? Does this mean that the word count of all the statements (including responses) made when added together must be shorter than 500 words? Or can a main statement be up to 500 words, and responses to other statements be up to 500 words. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, many editors are unaware of the case request word limits so please don't take the notice personally. In fact, it was just publicized that there is a 500 word limit to statements on Arbitration Enforcement which has never really been imposed until now. Most admins were unaware of it.
Right now, the clerks and arbitrators are discussing whether or not to include "hatted" comments towards the 500 word limit. The limit DOES cover responses to other editors. As a rule of thumb, as long as the statements (and responses) is between 500 and 600 words, you'll have no problem. It's just some folks post 2000 words (or more) so we are starting to pay more attention. It was also brought to our attention that if a case is accepted, there is a word limit to evidence and if someone has a preliminary statement of 2000 words, they have an unfair advantage over other editors who only get another 500 words in the evidence phase. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'll merge my responses into my statement and cut things down more, so everything should be about 600-650 words max. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #198

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

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for correcting my mistake on the ArbCom case page, i mislabeled the title of my comment by accident.XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I saw another editor asking if it was an official statement and when I looked over your user page, it was clear that it was your personal statement. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS!

Thanks for undoing my derp. I'm not sure how that managed to happen. Weird. Anyways, I appreciate you for doing that! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using AWB and Stiki when I first started editing but I found I was reverting edits that ended up being perfectly okay. Sometimes, I was reverting a revert of vandalism so I was restoring vandalism. People got pretty mad at me. I'm not talking about you but I know there are some editors who use these tools to basically revert any IP edit they come across. This edit was no problem to fix but I would not have even known about it if the editor hadn't complained. These automatic tools are powerful and, for me, Twinkle is as much as I will utilize. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Gallagher question

I just created this page. It had been deleted back in 2009 for CSD G12 I believed. Then when it was created the talk page popped up with this note: "This page was nominated for deletion on July 14 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy deleted." and the connected deletion discussion was that "Unsourced article - does not assert notability" and basically that it was a bad article. I don't know if it was about the same woman though I assume it was. However - my question - do I need to leave the tag about it once having been deleted on the talk page? Or do I remove it since a) it was eons ago and b) I have fully sourced the page and while it is NOT great yet it is certainly not a copy paste job. (actually it was hard to write because a copy paste would have made life SO EASY and re wording it hard when that's all you know about someone...) Or does an admin swing by and remove the tag and check for repeat offences? Thoughts? 🍺 Antiqueight chat 22:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that it is better to leave the tag, Antiqueight. If the AfD had been in the last two years, an editor could make the case that the article was deleted according to a previous deletion discussion and should be deleted but this was almost 7 years ago and it shouldn't affect your version of the article.
Since the edit history of the article is visible to interested readers, I think it's important to have a link to a previous deletion discussion. Think of it this way, editors will be able to see how improved the article is now! However, you never want to do a copy and paste job because those are usually copyright violations which would ensure that the article is quickly deleted. It has to be all original writing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I wouldn't copy and paste but it was so tempting! I'll leave the tag in place so. Thanks. Hadn't seen such before even when I've created articles which have previously been deleted so...I wasn't sure :-) 🍺 Antiqueight chat 23:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting

Hi Liz, could you redo this edit without date formatting? Those edits shouldn't be made in talkspaces. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that happened, I just added a comment to the talk page. But I undid the edit and then reposted my comment. I hope that fixed things. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Do you have admin-ship? You seem like a good candidate for an admin, that is, if you want to be. BTW Thanks for the info on my talk page. I just am not very social in real life, so I like to talk to people here, but I'll keep your advice in mind. Thanks. (Nice Kittehmaster haha)Meow!! 03:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You are a great administrator. Here is a barnstar. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You are a great administrator. Here is a barnstar. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i didn't mean to send this twice, but cheers! Winterysteppe (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection

It's the Denver Dummy™ who's miffed because of the escalating range blocks on 66.87.150.0/23. Best, Favonian (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I usually would put protection on an editor's talk page who didn't request it but he seemed particularly persistent. Hopefully, he will get bored and find something else to do with his time. Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Saturday March 5, 10am-5pm: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for the MoMA Art+Feminism edit-a-thon on Saturday, to support the expansion of Wikipedia's coverage of women in the arts.

We encourage both people new to Wikipedia, and people who have experience editing online, or have joined us for past edit-a-thon events.

This is by far our biggest event of the year (over 200 participants in the last edition), and every extra hand counts, so please join and volunteer to help us engage new communities!

10:00am - 5:00pm (drop-in anytime!) at The Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building at the Museum of Modern Art, 4 West 54 Street - between 5th/6th, New York, NY 10019
Please note that this entrance is one block north of the main 53rd Street entrance, closer to 5th Avenue.

And bring your interested friends and colleagues!

For those outside of the city, or unable to join on Saturday, check out Art+Feminism regional and global events as well. --Pharos (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please respond or stop bothering me!

Would you please be so polite and respond to my answer on my talk page this time. Otherwise I'm politely asking you to refrain from using my talk page unless absolutely unavoidable. We should normally be the last two people not to get along with each other, but it's in your hands. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Arbcom request

Just curious what was up with this edit. There is nothing on the Requests for Arbitration page and only the most minor of issues on the page which is supposedly in dispute. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L235 removed the case request here. It was only on the case request page for a day or two before it was withdrawn. I'll remove it from the Open Task list. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoominfo Crawler

Aren't internet bots software? Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because there wasn't a credible claim of significance. If you would like, I can "userfy" the article, that is, restore the article and move it into your user space so you can continue to work on it. Generally, editors work on articles as Drafts or in their Sandbox rather than putting them directly into Wikipedia main space. Every new article is evaluated while writings in Draft or User space are assumed to be works-in-progress. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that A7 does not cover computer software, or indeed anything that is not a real person, animal, group, organisation, organised event, or web content (which this is not because it runs over the web (like a web browser), not on it)? Adam9007 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct again, Adam9007. I still think Zoominfo Crawler is a good candidate for deletion but you are right that A7 was mistakenly applied. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but I can't think of any valid speedy criterion. Not that that matters to some people though (I'm not talking about you; I'm referring to other editors). As I understand it, some things are simply matters for slow deletion, and not speedy, because there's no consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow (Eiko Shimamiya song)

I believe this was an invalid A9 because the artist has an article. Adam9007 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, I've restored Yellow (Eiko Shimamiya song) but it still has a PROD so if you could improve the article, that would help prevent a future deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point though? The let's-just-ignore-policy (I don't mean you, and it's not quite the same as WP:IAR I don't think) brigade have been out in force today and in my experience, their attitude and behaviour assures them victory each and every time. Heck, someone almost threw a tantrum when I mentioned you'd overturned Zoominfo Crawler! Adam9007 (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why but the deletionists are more zealous and persistent than the inclusionists. The burden is often on those who want to keep an article to prove why it shouldn't be deleted. Since I've become an admin, much of my work has been clearing the CSD and PRODs backlog and I usually find 1 out of 8 or 9 articles have been mistagged and so I remove the tags. But I obviously have to become even more thorough in checking the deletion rationale. Thanks for the reality check. Liz Read! Talk! 11:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP has a question

I've reverted this post, and informed the IP at their page. I thought it was worth mentioning to you since it appears to be a valid question. I am now dropping a note on your talk. Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  16:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Hi, Ched. My page was protected for two days when I was reverting a roving IP troll who was targeting Favonian who then started targeting me. It will expire tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasn't asking for myself - but thank you for the reply. :-) Best, — Ched :  ?  22:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:CaseyMcCreedy

Hello Liz. I'm not sure if you've forgotten to actually unblock. Courtesy ping for JzG. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought by accepting the unblock request, that would lead to an unblock. Can you tell it's my first unblock? It's taken care of now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, zzuuzz. This is how I become a better administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CaseyMcCreedy unblock request

Just to drop you a note that while you accepted CaseyMcCreedy's unblock, you forgot to unblock the account. —Farix (t | c) 11:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the message above this, you'll see I unblocked this account yesterday afternoon. Liz Read! Talk! 13:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PROD of Neuroprotexeon

Hi. Once it registered that it was a PROD tag, and not a CSD tag, on Neuroprotexeon, might you not have reversed your removal of the tag? I'm assuming you know that failure to meet WP:N is as valid a reason for PROD as any other reason for which articles are subject to deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit to indicate I removed a PROD tag, not a CSD tag. And I see that you have nominated the article for deletion so its fate can be decided there. Liz Read! Talk! 14:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you to do anything, but suggesting what I felt you ought to have done previously: At the time you removed the PROD tag and then realized it was a (valid) PROD tag and not an (invalid) speedy deletion tag, you ought to have restored the PROD tag since you removed it by mistake, not because you were disagreeing with the deletion rationale I'd given. Yes, now I've nominated it for Afd because I didn't want to get into a wiki-legal to-do over restoring the PROD tag myself on the grounds that its removal was an error, but I'd have preferred not to take up people's time with a full discussion if unnecessary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #199

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

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement

Hello, please note that you are WP:INVOLVED with respect to me, as explained here. There is still no indication that you understand that your past actions were deplorable, which is the word Bishonen used in your RFA. Please retract your recent message on my talk page and any other interactions with me, and please follow WP:INVOLVED. Thank you. Manul ~ talk 04:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't stalk this page, but since I'm here (in order to post the note below), I'll just comment. Manul, that was a standard clerkly type of notice, which Liz gave to the other guy too; I don't think it's worth complaining about per se. However, Liz, since arbitration enforcement concerns sensitive matters, would you consider being a bit more diplomatic in your standard notice? "The instructions that are highlighted in the big pink box at the top of the page", as you put it does rather say "you're stupid" between the lines. Don't you think "the instructions in the pink box at the top of the page" would serve as well? Bishonen | talk 09:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Manul, I posted a message about word limits on arbitration pages which I've posted to other editors who've exceeded the word limit. I also posted an identical message to Askahrc whose statement also exceeded 500 words. I won't retract a simple notification. If you don't reduce the length of your statement, I will shorten it or find another administrator or clerk to do it. Reducing the length of your statement and responses is not optional, it is required by the guidelines of the page. I'm sorry, Bishonen, I'm not sure of a more diplomatic way to point out that an editor did not follow the instructions of the page. I will not use "highlighted" again although considering that the information is bolded, it is an appropriate description. Liz Read! Talk! 11:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, the reason I am posting here is the WP:INVOLVED issue, which you ignored. Would you please state that you understand that you are WP:INVOLVED with me. Thank you. Manul ~ talk 12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have been active on your talk page and elsewhere yet have not replied with a simple yes or no here, I will assume that you won't be responding to this message. If you plan to respond, but haven't decided how yet, then please say so. Manul ~ talk 09:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved when it comes to clerk actions such as placing administrative notices on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please state that you understand that you are WP:INVOLVED with me? Thank you. The notice was ham-handed since it ignored the context that the case was sent from Arbcom to AE and that I had asked for an extension on length (which was granted). Putting that issue aside, your past behavior with regard to me has been deplorable, and looking at your recent actions on unrelated issues I see the very same kind of incompetence that was so toxic two years ago. I would like you to not interact with me at all. Would you agree to that, please? Manul ~ talk 17:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't state that, I think I can be neutral despite your persistently deplorable behavior towards me. Incidentally, I contacted the arbitration committee suggesting that you and Askahrc be allowed to have a 1,000 word limit which you were both then given that day. You're welcome. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting obvious vandalism

Liz, I think it's concerning that you'd warn a constructive editor for reverting obvious vandalism at WP:AIV, as you did here. Did you look at the edits in question? I'm glad to see Oshwah took it in stride; a newer or less confident editor might not have. Bishonen | talk 09:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I saw an edit war occurring and notified both editors about this. Once I saw that other editor was blocked, I informed Oshwah that I was mistaken (diff) and that the reverts were warranted. Liz Read! Talk! 11:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider looking at the circumstances next time you see an "edit war" occurring. Even if you were not aware that there's an admin called Juliancolton, the common-sense option would have been to indef the disruptive sock without further ado, just from their contributions and/or a look at their talkpage. (Did you even notice I was agreeing with you above, about notifying Manul?) Bishonen | talk 11:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I've written two different responses to your message and deleted both of them before posting so at this point, I'll just acknowledge that I've read your message. Liz Read! Talk! 11:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if you could call it "daring commentary"....

when I had a golden opportunity to talk about his penis, and didn't :-) Oh, this election. Still you guys are lucky. I'm a US citizen living in the UK and I've never even voted in a US election; at least your elections are fun. In a few months I will have to take part in a hair-trigger referendum that will determine whether Britain stays in the EU, and indirectly whether the EU, and possibly the entire Western alliance, stays intact. Serendipodous 13:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can you vote in UK elections if you're a US citizen? Sounds like an important referendum and I imagine penis sizes will not be mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 13:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am also a UK citizen. :-) It should be interesting to see; British politics are not as democratic as US politics, which makes them more staid and predictable, but we still have our Trump cards. Serendipodous 13:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the campaign season in the UK is blissfully shorter, it doesn't last 18 months. I think some commentators started talking about the 2016 presidential election in 2013 or 2014. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Babuji

Hi! I had G13'd it, for it seemed the best category for deletion, since Mool Chand Jain, which is a duplicate of this draft, already exists in mainspace. Should I have G6'd it (housekeeping)? Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, onel5969. After seeing your message and realizing the draft was a duplicate of an existing article, I deleted the page. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transilvania

Trans=pass, Silva=forest. from latin Transilvania nation born land of Latin romania Sarmizecetusa the capital of vulgar Latin DACIA Dacians the brave from Thracians Herodot say the father of history Ovidiu say the language is similar with Roman language I understand Dacians mixed with Romans =Romanian Latin language old up to 2300 yers or more born in Transilvania

Flavius Aetius whas a Dacians Roman general and beat the Hungarian Attila Transilvania whas a independent territory ass well and like I don,t understand why this information you don,t left me to put on wiki. This is the true and I will make complainant this situation Because is make a fake Hungarian propaganda about Transilvania .and this is the true .and is simple . 


Adrian focsa (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

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

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

We will also vote on nominations for the global Wikimedia Foundation board.

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

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

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One likely talk this month will be on the Wikidata project.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

AN notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Liz". Thank you. Manul ~ talk 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pedophile activism

It did exist once, a decade ago. The case which led to the pedophiles being kicked off Wikipedia was one of the key events in shaping the subsequent development of Wikipedia's community and direction (along with the deletion of WP:Esperanza, which took place at about the same time). Things as disparate as "why do we revdelete potential libel without discussing it on-wiki?" to "why is Giano so distrustful of Wikipedia admins?"* to "why do we restrict what people can put on their userpage?" to "why can Jimbo no longer unilaterally desysop admins?" stem directly from the precedents set back then. Herostratus can talk you through the full grim story if you really care, or you can get a rough idea from this signpost story and the chronology at WP:PAW#Votes for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 12:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Giano was blocked for "hate speech" for this comment, and said block being in his block log was then subsequently taken as evidence by the self-appointed civility cops that he was a nonperson and they ought to jump straight to the hardest sanctions if they saw him make any comment they considered objectionable.

Thanks for the links, Iridescent, I know a little about the fight over the pedophilia userbox but hadn't read the arbitration case. I would think that this is an issue that Dingsuntil would drop but apparently he wants his contributions to be further examined and evaluated. Liz Read! Talk! 12:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Com Clerk action request - add shortcuts

Hi Liz! I was wondering if you'd be willing to create some shortcuts to arb com decision pages for me similar to WP:ARBBLP, WP:ARBGMO, or WP:ARBPIA. Below are my requests:

Given that regular users are not supposed to edit decision pages and per the advice of Doug Weller on his talk page, I thought I should ask a clerk directly to add these shortcuts. I can take care of creating the shortcut pages if you'd be kind enough to add the {{shortcut}} to the pages. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there have been hundreds of cases (there used to be many, many more cases each year 10 years ago), I can see this setting a precedent. Can you tell me a) why you chose these two cases to have shortcuts and b) what Doug or any other arbitrators thought of your suggestion? It's simple matter to include it, it's just not clear if this act will necessitate creating links to every case that, for instance, has discretionary sanctions. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted a second opinion so I posted your suggestion to the clerks email list. I'll let you know if there are strong yes or no opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I chose these two cases because I find myself referring to them frequently enough given my areas of interest and editing. And I am by no means suggesting we add shortcuts to all cases, but I can see a use for adding them to cases with active discretionary sanctions. Makes them easier to refer to when discussing on talk pages. Pinging Doug Weller since I originally approached him about this. Thank you Liz for looking into it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: I'm of the (personal) opinion that all active DS should get a shortcut. I'll keep an eye out if there are any strong negative opinions, but redirects are cheap. Quick note, don't use {{shortcut}} on case pages. Instead, simply update the list at Template:Casenav/shortcut. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Rereading this, quick clarification: I'm of the opinion that redirects should be created to active DS upon request of an editor. No need to go through every active DS and create shortcuts for them.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kevin. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@L235 and Liz: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For putting up with assorted nonsense I award you the "Patient Admin" barnstar. HighInBC 05:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to say that contrary to what other people have suggested, I think you are correct not to capitulate to unreasonable demands. I could not imagine what the situation would be if admins accepted requests for recusal that lacked a reasonable basis. HighInBC 05:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

I removed this comment on my own. Sorry if I tread on your toes, but it was even crazier than some of the other procedural "errors" by the user. Feel free to tell me not to do this again. Also, your decision whether to move the removed comment. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tell me not to do this again. Okay, don't do that again! I wouldn't have removed that comment because it was more inane than a personal attack and usually those are the only types of comments we remove (irrelevant remarks and rants we usually hat). Plus, the case request was declined and will be getting archived soon any way. But I'm not going to undo this removal because that would be pointy and bureaucratic and I do appreciate it that you told a clerk (me) about it. Thanks for that. Liz Read! Talk! 16:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The comment was in the Arb voting section. Thought that was an obvious removal. Dave Dial (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I just looked at the edit and not the entire context of the page. In that case, I would have moved the comment to the editor's section but a removal was okay, too, as I had stated that editors were only to post comments in their own sections. Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music For Headphones

Hi! Yesterday you deleted the page about Music For Headphones with the argumet that there was no article about the srtist. This is not true. There is indeed a page about the artist. May I recreate the page?

Regards, Ismael Escande Ismael Escande (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the artist, Ismael Escande? Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The artist is Robert Qwarforth as it was told in the infobox. /Ismael Ismael Escande (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article. But in the future, please link to the pages you are talking about, like Music For Headphones and Robert Qwarforth so I can just click on the link rather than copying and pasting the names in the URL. It just makes addressing the issue easier for the admin which will generally get a more positive response to any requests you are making. Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks for the tip! Regards, Ismael Ismael Escande (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Wikidata weekly summary #200

Wikidata weekly summary #186

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

In Need of Your Advice for Tenex Software Solutions Wikipedia Page

Good Afternoon Liz-

We briefly spoke a few weeks ago about a Wikipedia page you had looked at titled Tenex Software Solutions. You offered to usefy the article and we would very much appreciate any advice/comments you have on a draft I have been working on with what I believe is more balanced content. Please see the changes below and let me know how best to get this updated content on the page. I value your opinion and I look forward to talking with you.

Sincerely, StevenJohnson14

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ADOPTION-

Palm Beach County, FL along with Springfield and Cincinnati, OH all reported adopting

the Precinct Central ePollBook for administering Election Day services.

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH ELECTIONS-

November 3, 2015- Glitches in the new electronic system from Tenex caused extreme delays

and headaches in Hamilton County, Ohio.

+http://www.wlwt.com/news/responsibleohio-filing-injunction-to-extend-voting-hours-for-

hamilton-co/36237914

One of the largest problems encountered in Hamilton County was brought on by an incorrect

date set in the Tenex software. Voters who had registered after the August special election and

before the Oct. 5 voter registration deadline were not showing up as registered voters when

their IDs were scanned.

+ http://wvxu.org/post/e-poll-vendor-takes-responsibility-some-election-night-problems#stream/0

Thousands of voters were turned away without being allowed to cast a vote, in violation of their

rights under the Ohio Constitution.

+ http://www.wlwt.com/news/responsibleohio-filing-injunction-to-extend-voting-hours-for-

hamilton-co/36237914

A Hamilton County judge granted an emergency injunction to keep polls open until 9 p.m.

+http://www.wlwt.com/news/responsibleohio-filing-injunction-to-extend-voting-hours-for-

hamilton-co/36237914

According to election staff in Hamilton County, Tenex, the Florida-based vendor for the new

technology, put the wrong date in the program. The system carried the date for the August

special election which meant that anyone registered between July 5 and Oct. 5 who were

qualified to vote in November were showing up as not registered in time. That involved roughly

11,000 voters.

+ http://www.wlwt.com/news/board-more-than-one-problem-plagued-hamilton-co-polling-

places/36342856  

The problems that occurred were serious enough to generate a lawsuit and numerous

complaints.

+http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/11/05/ohio-vote-glitches-get-

fixed-2016/75261776/

One thing the board learned was this – the company that sold that sold it the $1.4 million

system, Tenex, was willing to take the blame for the technical snafus.

+ http://wvxu.org/post/e-poll-vendor-takes-responsibility-some-election-night-problems#stream/0

Ravi Kallem, the president of the software company Tenex, apologized to the board, the poll

workers and the voting public for the problems.

+ http://wvxu.org/post/e-poll-vendor-takes-responsibility-some-election-night-problems#stream/0

Florida-

August 2014- Palm Beach County found itself dealing with another voting glitch.

+http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/palm-beach-county-elections-

office-chases-dow-ipad/ng9BD/

After polls opened Tuesday, scattered reports began coming in about voters who handed poll

workers their licenses, only to have the iPad reject them.

+http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/palm-beach-county-elections-

office-chases-dow-ipad/ng9BD/

The glitches impacted locations that had more than one precinct assigned to it.

+http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/palm-beach-county-elections-

office-chases-dow-ipad/ng9BD/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjohnson14 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Stevenjohnson14, what do you mean by "we would very much appreciate any advice"? That implies you are editing on behalf of a group of individuals or an organization opposed to this company. Are you? If so, I strongly suggest you read the guidance at Wikipedia:Advocacy and Wikipedia:Role account. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore I use the word we as my friend and I are trying to navigate Wikipedia together as we are both new to this process.Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Voceditenore states, Stevenjohnson14, Tenex Software Solutions was restored and you can work on it now.
If you have questions about referencing, you can read Wikipedia:Citing sources or direct your questions to Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Voceditenore has nominated the article for deletion so it would benefit you to click on the link to the discussion so you can see what problems editors are finding with your article so you can improve it. Deletion discussions usually last a week so you have a few days to improve your article but it's not an indefinite period of time. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames of Ashanti origin

Hi Liz, I saw you deleted the category Category:Surnames of Ashanti origin under the rationale of "Mass deletion of pages added by Boqino" because of apparent hoaxing. The category is still in use on 58 pages. Is the category itself erroneous/unrelated to Asante dialect? AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the category, AusLondonder, thanks for letting me know. I don't know the relationship of Ashanti and Asante, Boquino just created a lot of needless categories that were either false, claiming there were geographic areas that did not exist, or duplicated existing categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity

what gender issues have made you wince? I mean I consider myself a feminist so if I have conveyed any antediluvian opinions on the topic I would like to know. Serendipodous 21:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, if I have REAL issues with the content, I post a note on the talk page. Sometimes the content is changed or altered, other times, it's not. I've learned that editing the page itself, unless there is a typo, will be reverted. It's your guys' page and I'm fine with it.
As for gender issues, one that recently made me wince was on Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/January 31 to February 6, 2016, for Roosh V, there was a statement, It seems women aren't the only ones who need to fear doxxing, threats of violence, and attacks on their families online. Not that it makes doing so any better, of course. While I don't condone any harassment that Roosh has faced, a backlash against "this odious "pick-up artist" was predictable given his actions, his books, his press conferences and public statements he has made. Meanwhile I was doxed, twice, during the Gamergate era for merely expressing my opinion about the the dispute on social media. I KNOW that men face harassment, I even wrote a newspaper op-ed about harassment men face online but it's clear from studies that women are disproportionately targeted. I know that you didn't say there was an equivalence between the number of women facing online harassment vs. one very vocal man receiving abuse but that is the impression that statement left with me.
But, as I said, I thought about leaving a note on the talk page but didn't. That's usually where I turn to suggest corrections. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that that was intended as a sarcastic comment. I was pointing out that it was nice that he got a taste of his own medicine, is all.Serendipodous 21:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spent way, way too much time observing attack planning at 8chan for a few months in 2015, to try to understand what was going on. I saw how random much of it is but once a target is selected, individuals will go to great lengths to find out personal information and mess with a person's life, in small ways (ordering pizza to their house) to large ways (sending racy photos of them to their employers). I really wouldn't wish an online mob go after anyone, no matter how odious they might be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me I'd love to live in a world where online mobs didn't exist, but the internet's basically made that impossible. So I'll take a bit of schadenfreude as consolation. Serendipodous 22:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Excuse me, Liz, but perhaps you could re-word your comment somewhat? I didn't do anything wrong so don't lump me in with QG, just because I'm in your doghouse. I don't know why QG felt the need to post personal attacks against me on SMc's talk page, but I addressed it there, and brought it to the attention of an admin. I don't know why SMc felt the need to post at 3RR instead of his talk page... that is a closed 3RR report that has nothing to do with him. I don't know why you are posting to a closed 3RR report either, for that matter... it's closed. That's why I'm using a talk page. Yes, those posts were disruptive, but you should address the ones actually doing the disrupting. Surely it's obvious to you that I have no interest in interacting with QG? Please leave me out of it. Thank you - theWOLFchild 01:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twowolfchild Liz took the words right out of my mouth. Both you and @QuackGuru: are bickering like children. I suggest you both start avoiding each other. Your back and forth is getting disruptive and Liz was right to warn you of that. HighInBC 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Really, I'm not even interested in this, but you guys keep dragging me in. Me and QG are not "bickering like children", and I'll ask you to strike that comment. I participated in a 3RR, like everyone else. Following that, QG posted a comment about on another talk page. I addressed it and brought it to the attention of an admin. Then I moved on. (or, at least I tried to). Now I have a second admin, with whom I've recently had a run in with, coming at me with this nonsense. I'm not the problem here. Go deal with the problem, and leave me out of it. (seriously, just. stop. posting comments to me, and see what happens. Nothing, that's what.) Have a good night. - theWOLFchild 01:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not obvious to me which is why I posted my comment. All I aimed to do was try to squelch this dispute before it gets out-of-control. I'm glad to leave you out of it completely as long as you are correct in saying that you have no interest in interacting with Quackguru. I hope if a situation like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#QuackGuru ongoing disruptive behavior at Peyton Manning occurs again, you won't be tempted to participate. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not telling that I can't contribute to ANI, so I don't know why you'd say that. As for all this, I meant what I said. Have a good night. - theWOLFchild 01:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three revisions

Hi there Liz, could you perhaps remove these three revisions? [7]-[8]-[9]. This (large amount of) bogus material is reinstated once in a while by anon IPs (even though it doesn't belong there at all), as well as by CU/Arbcom blocked puppets. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these edits meet the RevDel criteria at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction. Another admin might disagree but I don't see which criteria would fit this deletion request and I don't want to RevDel anything that isn't a clear cut case for one of the allowable criteria. Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

Hi Liz, Just letting you know that the warning you removed here [10] from Nepolkanov's wall is actually for a new Edit war he just started today after your last warning to him and it is not related to the one you commented on. I thought it was a Wiki-etiquette to post that on his wall no? YuHuw (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering he received two warning notices yesterday and then another one, which had no signature or timestamp, you can see why I might assume it was all for the same edit-war. Even if an editor was in two separate edit wars on the same day, I don't think that three notices are called for. The purpose of a notice is to tell an editor that there is a problem and if the bad behavior continues, they might be facing a block. That's the information one is trying to get across and an editor doesn't need to be told this three times. Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,First of all please pay attention that the YuHuw from his appearance on Wikipedia is busy by intensive multiple disruptive edits on all pages he has edited ignoring opinion of other editors.His reverst count are much over 3 (sometimes even 6) but he does it out of 24 h interval. The themes and style is identical to blocked predecessor cause to at least 4 editors to support Sockpuppet_investigation against him
In the last edit I have reverted he used new IP for revertion of other user .While it clear case of sockpuppetry it fails under 3RR exemption. I also reported the issue on the investigation page
I will appreciate if you could help to move this investigation from the dead point and to stop his clearly his disruptive edits since other ways to do that meanwhile were unsuccessful. Неполканов (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute has already been going on on article talk pages, ANI, Dispute resolution, user talkpages and I don't want another skirmish here. As far as I can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz is inconclusive since it was filed on February 7th and is still open. If there was obvious sockpuppetry going on, there would be blocks and a closed case within a week or ten days after filing it. So, apparently, the evidence isn't convincing to the admins and checkusers at SPI. Since the entire basis of the opposition to YuHuw is because he is viewed as a sockpuppet and the SPI is undecided, blocks are unwarranted unless there is disruption going on and the edit-warring I've seen has been on both sides. Please take your case to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI or, better yet, drop the entire matter and work on other articles where you don't run into each other. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the edits history again :actually there are only 2 my reverts there and not 3,because this one is not revert but explained on the talk page remove of unreferenced claims. So Yuhuw 3RR warning is misleading. Неполканов (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #201

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

Resubmitting an article that was moved to draft

Liz,

Good morning. I have done some editing on an article that was pulled from Wikipedia and placed in Draft. Can you tell me how I go about resubmitting it for review? I'll admit I'm having a bit of trouble navigating the "hows" and "how nots" of Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimH1846 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TimH1846,
If you want to submit a draft for review, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Basically, you need to post {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article and then it will go into the pool of articles that are to be reviewed by editors at AfC. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Liz. That was very helpful.

Sincerely, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimH1846 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected in sockpupetry and warned by you editor continues the edit war by obvious sockpupetry until blocking

Please look at this, where disruptive edit warrior exposes his sockpuppetry, explaining it by unbelievable technical reasons. Неполканов (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out but as I stated above, take your complaints (with diffs) to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. Also, always put new messages at the bottom of a talk page, not the middle. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bikini Ireland

They don't take no for an answer. I declined the draft as promotional after it was tagged for speedy deletion. They resubmitted it and I declined it again. It appears that the only NO that they will take for answer is a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got 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.

Destiny Leo (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You're an admin? I see you close reports lately. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I closed obvious cases on ANI before I became an admin, Debresser. My RfA, or as I remember it, My trial by blistering, white-hot fire was last August. It was very, very contentious. Right now, I'm focusing on clearing backlogs, doing routine tasks and other uncontroversial admin activities. Eventually, I'll move into other areas. But I'm content right now doing janitorial work, blocking obvious vandals and offering my opinion if I think it might be constructive.
I hope you are well. It seems like a long time ago that we were having debates about categories on Jewish identity and descent. I'm sure they are perennial questions that are likely to reappear again in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nice to see you again in your new role. Debresser (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Enjoy! MaranoFan (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

valereee (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #202

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

Reporting vandal account?

Hey Liz, This account needs to be warned for vandalism or just blocked as NOTHERE. I'd put the template on them but I'm not sure I know how. HMS Werewolf (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor who said he would maintain distance, comes AGAIN!

Calling your attention to this.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overflow at your admintools page

Dear User:Liz. Your page User:Liz/Admin dashboard has appeared at Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. You could help us to empty this maintenance category by replacing everything with {{admin dashboard/light}} that provides the same functionality, but is far less prone to overflow. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, Pldx1, for both telling me that there was a problem and providing me with a solution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This day's This Special Day's article for improvement (day 1, month 4, 2016)

Skvader - Tetrao lepus pseudo-hybridus rarissimus in the wild at Örnsköldsvik
Hello!

The following is WikiProject This Special Day's articles for improvement's daily selection:

Skvader

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Snipe hunt • Jenny Haniver

Get involved with the TSDAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Share this message with other editors

Posted by: w.carter-Talk 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) using New improved MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of WikiProject TSDAFI • [April Fools!][reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Social work

I am 59.89.239.7, would you be kind to regulate the no. days of block mentioned in it. I dont understand why my revisions and talk lead to pp vandalism. I would like to discuss there and point something that is wrongly put. Though Softlavender has edited it to clear the issue, the edit itself is wrong when it removes the original definition and it looks distant with the source. If the request couldn't be done, can you review the issue I have mentioned.61.1.147.137 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an edit suggestion for now on the article talk page Talk:Social work. Liz Read! Talk! 13:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that too seems blocked.61.1.147.137 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the talk page and make sure it is unprotected. Since your IP number changes, it would help you if you created a registered account with a username. Then you could become auto-confirmed and could edit articles under semi-protection. Liz Read! Talk! 14:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You61.1.147.137 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

I recommend revoking talk page access for user:174.120.172.162. 2602:306:3357:BA0:DD09:8C7C:68DF:D31A (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the editor's talk page but right now their comment is part of a unblock request that has been replied to so it is inappropriate to delete it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review deleted wikipedia article

Good evening, I was hoping you would be able to assist me. I am aware that you deleted a page I had created. I wanted to gain temporary access to the deleted page to copy the code. I will be using it to design a page that correctly follows wikipedia guidelines. The page is the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research. Thanks! Gravitycollapse (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case you make future requests for undeleting pages, Gravitycollapse, it's best to provide a link to the deleted article. I'll check it out now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article as a draft at Draft:Society for Menstrual Cycle Research but had to remove much of the article because it was a complete copyright violation (cut and paste) of http://www.menstruationresearch.org/about-the-society/. Wikipedia has to have originally worded content, it can't be borrowed from other publications or websites except for limited quotations. More information might have to be removed from the article and it would probably be wise to rewrite the entire piece. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the help and advice! I greatly appreciate it. Gravitycollapse (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #203

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

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity

Wednesday April 13, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

Special this month, a Mini-Video opportunity for individuals to share their Wikipedia experiences (during pre-meeting, 6-7pm, and in side-office during regular meetup). A videographer will be present to record 1-3 minute Mini-Videos of folks informally speaking, sharing anything about their Wikipedia-related projects, whether an edit-a-thon they joined, an article they edited, or a class project they were a part of, etc.

We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

We will also place our chapter's votes for the global Wikimedia Foundation board.

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

6:00pm - 7:00pm Mini-Video and social hour
7:00pm - 9:00pm Regular meeting: Introduction for new participants, Noshing, Chapter projects

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!

Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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

When you get a minute (or ten)...

Could you review and close this discussion at ANI? The only alternative that I can see is...

Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welllllll, I'll look it over but, frankly, I've mainly handled blocks of obvious vandals and page protection, not interaction bans. At first glance, I can not discern if there is even a consensus for an IBan. Euryalus just closed an equally, if not more, complicated case so you might ask him to take a look at it. With these unwieldy ANI cases, I think it helps to have more experienced admins determine consensus not only because they have done it before but because their decisions are less likely to be challenged. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a tag to the title. Hopefully someone will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions about the ANI

Am in agreement to drop my cases and even if I believe there are other violations - we should leave it off and hope that we won't run into each other again. However there are a few things I want to clarify. Is the closed ANI still possible to edit?. It appears that the case is closed and that there was a repeat Shabazz's claim of WP:BOOMERANG (which I did not even bother to respond to the first time). I feel it is important to explain for the record that there was no BOOMERANG. Am I able to edit it? Or could we request the user who added it to remove it until/unless it is substantiated?

A separate question: - What is the correct way to handle another (unrelated) user which appears to be on Wikipedia for the one single agenda of whitewashing a certain minority group of people. Caseeart (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback The Walking Dead (season 6)

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Talk:The Walking Dead (season 6)#"Negan beats one of the group members to death.".
Message added 12:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reidgreg (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humor of the day!

If two vegans have an argument, is it still beef? 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

683. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

This is your only warning. If you are a member of this wiki during the tax season again, you may be be given this Tax day card without any more warnings:

Happy Tax Day!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Happy April and a very Happy Tax Day,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –DesertGrass^_^ Happy tax day / Happy April 04:48, 11 Aril 2016 (UTC)

FYI

This might be of interest. I forgot to include mention of your recent warning diff before saving that, so I wasn't able to ping you by including it in the revision, I just remembered. I wish they'd fix pings to work more sensibly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Hi, Liz. I was hoping to pick your brain on this whole "original research" thing. BTW, I'm not arguing an edit (which has been made irrelevant at this point) but am more interested in practices and procedures re: editing. So, purely as an example, I took Carl off of the list of characters who could have been killed in the TWD season 6 article's summary for "Last Day on Earth," noting in the edit summary how Negan specifically identified Carl as someone he wasn't beating. You reversed that as "no original research". I thought it was about as apparent as "the capital of France is Paris." But if that counts as original research, wouldn't it also be original research to claim that the low camera angle in the final shot is the POV of a character on their knees? At what point of minutia does one consider something to be original research? Or would issues like that have to be sorted out case-by-case amongst editors on the talk page?Reidgreg (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reidgreg, to answer your specific question, all the viewer knows is that these 11 characters have been lined up and that Negan says that he will kill one of them. I don't recall Negan saying that he wouldn't kill Carl (I'd be interested in knowing the exact dialogue), but the viewer knows nothing about Negan and whether he is a truthful person. That is why the summary says that he apparently killed an Alexandrian because all the viewer saw was his bat coming down on the camera with the sight of blood and some crushing noises..but we didn't see a dead body and none of our main characters said a line like, "Oh, God, Abraham/Sasha/Maggie is dead, you've killed her." So, we assume someone died but the viewer won't be certain that one of the eleven has died (and who it might be) until the season 7 premiere. And it doesn't matter if producers say in the media that someone "beloved" was killed, a plot summary only contains what is seen by a viewer in that hour or hour and a half of TV time. Including in a plot summary for a TV episode what one might know from reading the comics or from an interview with an actor on the show or what one figures out from clues given over the series, is not considered appropriate. It's completely okay to discussion this on a message board, but not in a Wikipedia article.
More explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries and, more specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section. This is an important line: Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source but you should read the entire section on TV plots if you think you'll be contributing to TV episode summaries.
Thanks for initiating a talk page discussion, that is usually where these differences of opinion get hashed out. Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. I'm looking more for your opinion and the benefit of your experience in dealing with such issues in the past. At what point of minutia does one consider something to be original research? I can see the benefits of going to the talk page (assuming the other parties are willing to discuss) but it seems like that could become exhaustive if the threshold between common sense and original research is set too low.
Since you asked, this dialog is at the beginning of the last shot (from the infamous POV), just after Negan picks his victim he says, "Anybody moves, anybody says anything, cut the boy's other eye out and feed it to his father." (I didn't have the complete quote the first time around.) It doesn't seem like much of a threat to me to have an eye cut out or be fed said eye if one's head is already being bashed in. Plus it sounds inconvenient and unrealistic for a Savior to accomplish this during a head-bashing. So, like a lot of other people, I tend to take both Rick and Carl off of the list of possible victims. I guess it's putting a clue together, but it seems a little much to call it research when it's in the same shot. It wouldn't make any sense for it to be Rick or Carl. Although I suppose at this point we don't know Negan very well and he could be a complete nonsensical lunatic. Logic might be too much to ask of the scene.
BTW, I didn't have a big problem with the list. I just feel that lists of characters can get a bit tiresome, you see some editors who want to note every character present in every scene, and was shortening it a little. Personally I feel that list is something that might better belong on the article for that episode rather than in the season's article. But, you know, bold-undo-discuss (or something along those lines, it could use improvement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidgreg (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd closes

Mind clarifying what you saw that prompted you to ask Gimubrc to read the NAC essay? I've been answering some questions for him about TFD and looking over what he's done there every once and a while, and I'd like to know if there's an area I can help him with. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rob, his account is only two months old with 122 edits. It is very unusual for someone with that limited experience to be closing deletion discussions. I mean, New Page Patrollers are required to have at least 200 mainspace edits before even tagging pages for deletions. Receiving rollback rights to remove vandalism also requires 200 mainspace edits and closing a deletion discussion carries more responsibility than reverting vandalism.
I understand that you need some help over at TfD and hopefully you'll be looking over his work. Reading NAC can help him avoid common problems. Non-admins can close certain discussions but the ones that are considered appropriate closures are relatively narrowly defined and he should be aware of them. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't reviewed his account history, only the specific edits relevant to TfD. Although his user page does say he was an IP editor for years. Just so you're aware, the consensus at TfD on what non-administrators can close is fairly broad, mostly due to necessity. We'd have a 6 month backlog if this were not the case. An RfC was closed with consensus for a trial period where non-administrators could close TfDs as delete, largely because the immediate action that needs to occur is either a listing at WP:TFD/H or the grunt work of removing transclusions, neither of which require the mop. That RfC was way back in July 2015, I believe, and no-one has ever seen reason to reassess the trial, since it's been quite successful at keeping the backlog manageable. In practice, there's also been consensus for allowing non-administrators to close discussions that are not 100% clear so long as they're willing to discuss the closure (similar to RfC closures). Not sure if that was ever assessed at an RfC, as the practice pre-dates my contributions in this area. In short, the description of appropriate closures in that essay is very different from the prevailing criteria for appropriate closures at TfD. ~ RobTalk 16:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment at ANI

Here is the link. I kindly ask for your wonderful opinion. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this discussion has already been closed. Liz Read! Talk! 12:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expired PROD

Hello Liz, could you please delete this expired PROD, when you have a moment, Daniel Cleary (footballer), Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liz Read! Talk! 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #204

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

Karst Warning and Double account.

Hi Due to being considered a sock puppet in my second account, I have moved back to my first account, but kept the name Limehous-0. So, as you ask, I have discarded what is now Limehous-NotInAction. Thanks for helping with my report. Limehous-0 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Limehous-0. I started with one account 9 years ago, abandoned it, created a new account 3 years ago and then changed the name on my account to what it is now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks for understanding! :) Limehous-0 (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletions problem

Why you deleted my sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainudin (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mainudin, the answer was left for you on your talk page by Theroadislong. The page was tagged with a U5 speedy deletion tag (for more information see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5) that states that pages in userspace should be used for communication between editors and for working on articles, not for hosting information that would be more suitable for a social media profile (like Facebook) or other writings that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Userspace should be used for editing Wikipedia purposes or for article building. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2016

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in March 2016.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC History of South America

Hi Liz, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 talk 02:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #205

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

Protection once again for Vitamin C

Hi Liz, can you protect once again the Vitamin C article? Maybe longer this time? That never ending IP hopper will never stop vandalizing it. Caden cool 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having to revert an edit once in a while doesn't warrant long-term page protection. If vandalism becomes more frequent, request review at WP:RPP. Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks

What is the right way to quietly as ArbCom clerks to do something? Is there a clerk mailbox? Email an individual clerk? I emailed ArbCom itself in this instance, but surely that's not the best way to work. Or, is it? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@MarkBernstein: I believe this is what you're looking for. The clerks have their own mailing list if needed. — Strongjam (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongjam is correct, the best way to bring a matter to attention of the clerks team is to email them at <clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. Depending on the question or concern raised, we might have to inquire with the arbitration committee to determine if or what action needs to be taken. I've been away for a week so I'm behind on reading my piled-up clerks email messages. Liz Read! Talk! 12:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SSTflyer/redirecttest

Please restore this page. WP:G8 excludes user talk pages. Thanks, SSTflyer 16:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The page still only consists of a redirect to a deleted page so it could well be deleted again or tagged by another editor. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SSTflyer: I've tagged it as {{G8-exempt}} to try to get it off the bot report. Another option that will work for sure is to convert it to a {{soft redirect}}. If you could explain why you need this subpage, I would appreciate it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Chesnaught555's talk page.
Message added 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you could briefly explain the email to me, if you are unable to find a copy of it? I have a feeling I know what it's about, but if you would rather keep the content of it confidential, I understand. Thanks in advance --Ches (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've resent the message, Ches. Let me know if it doesn't arrive in your Inbox or Spam folder. Liz Read! Talk! 12:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Received and responded. Thanks, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re [an offensive username]

The username in question is User:Andrewgarfieldstightass. Moved out of the headline. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've both reported him to the username list, but the bot removes names as soon as they are blocked, so your short vandalism block on the account is preventing anyone from seeing the username reports. Meters (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I didn't foresee this happening. I will unblock him although I fear there might be more vandalism. Thanks for letting me know. Can you report him after I have unblocked him? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK Meters (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Meters (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This actually seems like a bug (or at least an opportunity for improvement) in the Bot. I'll see if I can figure out where to report it. Meters (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, Meters. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if anyone is actually watching that talk page. [11] It certainly does not see much traffic. Meters (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Meters: from the bot’s user page I gather a better place to post might be User:HBC AIV helperbot/Feature requests. You might also get a quicker response by pinging HighInBC.—Odysseus1479 21:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, already figured that out and moved it. Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed. Liz, I have trouble understanding why you don't block such usernames indefinitely yourself. It's an attack on a named individual. Reminds me I noticed a while back that you reported this character at WP:UAA.[12] Do you sometimes forget you're an admin yourself? Bishonen | talk 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't understand your hostility to me, Bishonen. I do not regularly patrol WP:UAA and when I do visit, I frequently see usernames that seem obvious to me should result in a block, are often not blocked.
I have only been using my admin abilities sparingly because there was a substantial number of participants at my RfA who were worried that I would misuse the bit or act rashly. So, I might have erred in the opposite direction by only taking action in unquestionable cases. And if I tag a page for deletion, I do not do the deletion myself as I think the page deserves to be reviewed by two people. Probably after I have been working as an admin for as many years as you, I will act differently but as I wasn't elected almost unanimously, caution has been my watchword. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand about your RfA. But I just don't see how abusive usernames could be much more "unquestionable" than those two cases. If I had hostility towards you, I guess I might have taken you up about the fuck and cock name when I saw your report of it in March. I only came here today because I take attacks on named individuals seriously — more seriously than four-letter words. But I'm done. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, this sounds exciting. I patrol UAA regularly and I think that DQBot is a bit uptight. But that user name, yes, it deserved to be blocked right away. ON a general note, I don't understand why admins don't make that extra step. Typically, a promotional user page accompanies a promotional user name--block them and save us all some time. Frequently, a pure hoax/vandalism/attack page comes from a UH-BLOCK ready name--block them and save us all some time. Liz, I didn't read your RfA that way, that you were too rash. I will tell you all, and everyone who listens, that more admins need to patrol UAA. Frequently I walk by there and see 50 or more names. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care who blocks this guy, but Liz, your talk page is on my watchlist and I keep seeing asses go by. Hope no one minds if I move the username out of the headline so it stops popping up in all the edit summaries. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're just jealous cause my ass is parked solid on Liz's talk page. And you're an arthropod. Whatever that is. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really even have an ass. So there ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question concerning deletion

Why did you delete my article? It was only a test, because it was my first time... now I have to re-create my page. I protest about your undoing and I will report you to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolwen (talk • contribs) 07:08, April 24, 2016 UTC

My protest against ur behaviour D-8<

You are a Bully! Terribly done!
Why did you delete my two articles? They were only tests for trying out Wikipedia! Lolwen (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, it's ANI in a smiley. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday April 30: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim

Saturday April 30, 1-6pm: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim
File:Monir Portrait-exh ph021.jpg

On Saturday April 30, 2016, in conjunction with a global campaign, the Guggenheim will host its fourth Wikipedia edit-a-thon — or, #guggathon — to enhance Wikipedia's coverage of modern and contemporary artists from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and to counter geocultural systemic bias on Wikipedia.

The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of the Guggenheim UBS MAP Global Art Initiative, and build on the model of campaigns like the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Guggenheim: Women in Architecture, Wikipedia Asian Month, and Art+Feminism.

New and experienced editors are welcome. The event will include a training session for participants who are new to Wikipedia and Wikipedia specialists will be on hand to provide basic instruction and editing support.

Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global MENA Artists Month partnership page to coordinate international and online events as well.

Time: Presentation: 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm, Edit-a-thon: 2:30pm - 6:00pm
Location: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1071 Fifth Avenue (88th Street), New York City, New York 10128
Guests should enter using the 88th Street entrance via the ramp at 88th Street and Fifth Avenue

Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

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

Wikidata weekly summary #206

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

Contested deletion

Hi, I noticed you deleted Hestia (Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?) as per CSD R3. However, the original disambiguator was the anime/manga series in which the character appears in. The majority of such fictional characters are disambiguated by their primary series, and Hestia's was only moved because complaints were raised over its length. So I feel it's definitely a plausible search term here being an exception and not the norm.

I know this isn't really controversial but as the original creator of the redirect I'm technically not allowed to restore it, and I don't want any trouble. Thanks, Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

Thanks for the thanks, I came here to say so cos obviously you do a lot of work in the background but couldn't find an article or anything in a hurry to tip a wink on that. Never been to your page before but like the pics. (You're very cute by the way, but fortunate for one or both or neither of us even my flirting talents don't stretch across an ocean.) I like doing stuff in the garden too, I bunged a load of bulbs of tulips in an old iron bathtub last October and the daffs are no had and gone but the tulips are doing well, they always do better the next year, it was their first year. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Work

Hi Liz. I see you recently protected Social Work to protect against vandalism, however, when I looked I didn't see any. I don't suppose you could point me to the vandalism, or the discussion that lead to protection? WormTT(talk) 12:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Worm! The ANI discussion was right here and a previous discussion in February on ANI is here. I thought two weeks of semi-protection might break up the edit wars happening at Social Work but I see that it has continued. Liz Read! Talk! 12:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnu Kuruvila

Looks like Chinnu Kuruvila was recreated right after you deleted it-it even has the prod on it still! Wgolf (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Wgolf. I try to check the deletion log to see if articles are recreated soon after they are deleted but we can always use more eyes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

Hi, Liz! In case you're interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

I'm going to be honest, my methods of editing here are like anyone else's, I use multiple tabs and, with NPP, I open several tabs, go through then one by one, close then after I successfully reviewed them and continue again with the next, and I also will use a laptop to get it faster. I also use these methods for anything else, AfD, AfC, MfD. I assure you I pay attention to each one of them, and I can go fast, because I'm a fast reader. As I've made clear, NPP is not a game to me. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deleted article

Hi Liz, I'm not angry (just want to get that out there first). My draft was apparently deleted because someone thought I copied the bio from another source (and other fixable reasons). I am the author of the bio on the GNC website. If someone had looked closer, they would have seen that my wiki links were all included. I was asked by Carla Lewis, who is George Nicholas personal assistant, if they could use what I had written on his website. She simply copied and pasted and didn't remove the links. You can see that here: http://georgenicholascreations.co.uk/ I do not copyright anything that I write and never will-- I give it to Mr. Nicholas to do with what he wants. Now, I do understand that my wiki article that I had in the draft stage needed a lot of work, but I don't have time right now. I do want to continue it at some time (of course I have all my original work)! So, I'm thinking that my best option is to start over when I have time to do so... but how do I overcome this copyright business? It IS my material. Thanks for any input. It is much appreciated. Sincerely. WebspinnerLlewellyn (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)WebspinnerLlwellyn[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&oldid=717860733"